CLAUSE 1.—(Establishment of London Passenger Transport Board.)

§
Amendment proposed [29th November]: In page 1, line 13, in lieu of the words last left out, to insert the words:
by a body (in this Act referred to as 'the Appointing Trustees') consisting of the following persons:—

the chairman of the London County Council;

a representative of the Advisory Committee (as hereinafter in this Act defined);

the chairman of the Committee of London Clearing Bankers;

the president of the Law Society; and

the president of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales.

§
The appointments to be made by the Appointing Trustees shall be made after consultation with such persons as they may think fit."—[The Attorney-General.]

The Committee will remember that, at the stage at which Progress was reported on Tuesday night, an Amendment had been passed which removed from the Minister the responsibility of appointing the Board. We must now, obviously, proceed to fill the gap. The present Amendment proposes to do this by providing for the appointment of a body of five appointing trustees to appoint the Board. This proposal was set out in the White Paper which I circulated last July. The method proposed will give effect to the decision of the Committee, as I understand it, that political changes are not to be represented in the personnel of the Board. All the great professional bodies named in the Amendment have agreed to their chairmen or presidents acting in the capacity proposed, and I am convinced that we shall receive the co-operation of the London County Council in allowing their Chairman to act as one of the appointing trustees. It will be noticed that one of the
1004
appointing trustees is to be a member of the London Traffic Advisory Committee, and here again, as in the personnel of the Board, we have provided for a proper recognition of the importance of the local authorities in this matter. When I mention that of the London Traffic Advisory Committee, which consists of 39 members, no fewer than 23 will be representatives of local government, I do not think it can be suggested that we have not given proper recognition to that very important phase of this work.

The primary object of the appointing trustees must be to select persons who in their opinion are qualified by past experience and by their general business capacity to manage an undertaking of this magnitude. In doing so, they will not be primarily concerned with the technicalities of transport, but will be concerned with the broad principles of organisation and of finance; but the representative of the London Traffic Advisory Committee will be one who has a first-hand knowledge of the problems of transport in the Metropolis, and the Chairman of the London County Council will also be there to see that full weight is given to the interests of the travelling public in making appointments to the board. The other gentlemen are selected as persons divorced from political associations and possessing, by the offices which they hold, the acknowledged position, training, and type of mind calculated to fit them for the task of selecting persons of proved business and financial experience. Many variations could be proposed of the body which we have suggested, but, after the fullest consideration, it is considered that the five persons named in the Amendment most fully and accurately meet the requirements of the situation, while at the same time avoiding the risk of undesirable influences being brought to bear on the appointment of the board. The Amendment as set out on the Order Paper conveys the intention of the Government, I hope, quite clearly, and with these few remarks I beg to move it.

I hardly think we have had a very adequate explanation of this Amendment from the Minister. The last time we were discussing this subject we had a curtailed explanation from the
1005
Attorney-General, who got no further than telling us that these were highly respectable gentlemen. Let us look at this proposal. To begin with, it is a confession on the part of members of the Government that they are not to be trusted to make appointments without undue influence. I know of no Government that has combined more vanity with more of an inferiority complex than this one. Heaven forbid that I should say that it is not justified, but the position really is most extraordinary. Here we have a Minister of the Crown, appointed to serve in a particular office, a man who is supposed to have the confidence of the majority of this House; but he is not to be trusted to make an appointment to this body for fear of undue influence. It is thought that there will be temptations in the way of the Minister. I can remember the case of a Minister who made certain appointments, and it turned out that the persons appointed were his brother and his partner in business. His reply, which, after all, was quite a proper one, was that a man had to appoint people whom he knew, and these were the people whom he knew best.

If that be true, it applies also to these eminent gentlemen. A cobbler thinks there is nothing like leather. A chartered accountant will think there is nothing like a chartered accountant; a solicitor will think there is nothing like a solicitor; a banker will think there is nothing like a banker; and, when these three gentlemen get together with the other gentlemen, the result of their deliberations will be that the appointments will include a 'banker, a lawyer and a chartered accountant—a nice little back-scratching arrangement. It is thought, "Oh, no, there will be no sort of influence," but will there be no pressure on these gentlemen? In every professional body there is always a certain number of unworthy failures, and it is extremely convenient to have some opportunity of putting unworthy failures into offices of some importance, of some remuneration, and not too exigent in their duties. There are numbers of posts in the law in which people who have not quite got to the front rank find a convenient resting place. The suggestion that somehow or other the only people who are open to this political pressure are Ministers of the Crown is sheer hypocrisy.

1006
There is a most extraordinary illusion in this House of Commons which I have not observed in any of its predecessors, and that is that there is something very wicked about politics. Their idea of politics is only party politics. They do not seem to understand that politics is carrying on the business of the State. You might as well say you cannot trust the Secretary of State for War to appoint a commander-in-chief, and you will have a body of appointing trustees. You might perfectly well have the Archbishop of Canterbury and the President of the Peace Society. After all, although London traffic is necessarily a matter which is of some interest to all the citizens, London being the capital city, it is also a London matter, and one would have thought some attempt would be made, if you were to appoint these trustees, to have someone connected with London. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Chainman of the County Council."] Yes, someone, but let one take another. Why should the President of the Law Society come in? He is a Bristol man. He is, no doubt, an eminent lawyer, but you might as well have had an eminent lawyer living in Vancouver Island. You have the London clearing bankers. If you wanted a banker, you could get one anywhere you like. As a matter of fact, what has a banker to do with London traffic? A bank clerk would be much better. He travels third class and not first and is a strap-hanger. I have never known a Government with such a high opinion of chartered accountants. They farm out all their work to chartered accountants. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has almost a sinecure. He hands over his most important functions to a chartered accountant. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I do not know why. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman explains that it is because, unfortunately, this Government took over one of our misfortunes—the Prime Minister. Indeed, I can understand the Prime Minister accepting this, because I have never known anyone with a greater reverence for bankers and chartered accountants. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving us the reason. I never liked the appointment of the May Committee.

I must apologise for being out of order, and I am sorry that I cannot reply as I should wish to the hon. Member opposite. Perhaps another time. Look at this collection of Gentlemen. There will, first of all, be the heads of certain professional bodies. They hold office, in some cases at least for one year only. They are to appoint this board and thereafter to take a fatherly interest in it. They are to watch it. They are to find out how it carries on, not that they have any means of finding out how it carries on, for they have no power to inquire what it does, but, if any one of these five people become senile or demented or fails to attend, the Committee has to step in and remove him. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) in our last Debate made the very good point that in these matters it is not only the question of appointing that is important; it is the question of removing. Here the Government are setting up these five commissars, and they are not even providing for any central praesidium, to remove them if they do not do their work. They are put under the control of five personalities. They are shifting personalities. They are appointed by one, and he goes out of office. The next president comes along and has to have a long interview with his predecessor to find out why he appointed this man. He has to have an account of what has happened. Year after year the personnel of this wonderful advisory committee is going to change. I understand that, except for the instance of Lord Rosebery, the chairman of the London County Council changes every year. The President of the Law Society changes every year. I do not know with regard to the clearing bankers and the chartered accountants, but I understand it is the same thing.

Why should these people be selected more than any others? This is the first time in my recollection of the House that it has been proposed to give an important office to a solicitor and the barristers have not protested. I do not know whether they are daunted by the fact that the Attorney-General is in
1008
charge of the Bill. I have never known a previous instance where there was a plum going for the legal profession—[HON. MEMBERS: "No pay."] No pay but, at all events, patronage, and I do not know that lawyers are averse from exercising patronage. Why should not the barristers have their say here I am sure the Attorney-General or the Lord Chief Justice is quite as good as the President of the Law Society. What about architects? What about engineers? What about doctors? What about pedestrians? I think the Committee will agree that pedestrians and doctors and undertakers are vitally or perhaps mortally interested in London traffic. None of these people who are selected are specially concerned in London transport. There, again, I trace the influence of the Prime Minister.

We are suggesting in various Amendments that come on later that there should be some principle, at all events, in this. We can understand the local government principle, for instance, or the private interest principle; we can understand the State principle; and we can understand the principle that obtains in such a body as the Port of London Authority in which the users of the Port control it. But this is something entirely new, and I object altogether to the suggestion which is always being put forward as to the existence of some body of wonderfully impartial people who are more moral and so much better than an ordinary Member of Parliament returned by his constituents. I never believe in that impartiality. I remember, some years ago, discussing a question between capital and labour, and an eminent Liberal said to me: "What you really want is arbitration by an impartial person." I said: "You cannot get one." He replied: "Oh yes you can." I said: "Who?", and he mentioned three prominent Liberals.

If the Government had been logical, if they had said, "We are afraid that we cannot trust ourselves to make any of these appointments," then perhaps they might have trusted the whole House, and substituted for this body the Committee of Privileges, putting it in the hands of the House of Commons. But the last thing that the Government want is any control by this House, and there has never been a House of Commons so ready
1009
to concede to the Executive and to outside persons the right for which their forefathers fought. And so we have this extraordinary production. I suggest that this wonderful new body of Appointing Trustees, this new device, has not been the result of hard thinking on constitutional lines. I doubt whether it has been submitted to any of those bodies in the Conservative party which consider such grave constitutional matters as the reform of the House of Lords. It seems that this has been sprung by the way in order to cover up such mistakes as were made by the Secretary of State for the Colonies when he took up such a violent attitude on this Bill on its first introduction.

If Members will read some of the past business in this House, they will find the true doctrine stated very clearly by a late Conservative Member. We had all this discussion over the appointment of the Central Electricity Board. The position was well summed up by one who was not a supporter of that Measure, the late Sir Frederick Hall, who said, although opposed to the Measure, that the vital thing was that the appointments should be made by somebody who was responsible to this House, that is, the Minister of Transport, and that, speaking for himself, he trusted the then Minister of Transport, and he trusted the late Minister of Transport, the late Mr. Harry Gosling, and, from his place below the Gangway, he said that he trusted Members on both sides of the House and on both Front Benches. In a matter of this kind, he said, the Members, on whichever side of the House they sat, would exercise their judgment in the interests of the country and in the carrying on of a great public undertaking. Is this House so much worse than its predecessors? Is this Government so much worse than any of its predecessors that this House now says: "We cannot trust this Minister of Transport; we cannot trust any Minister of Transport. We cannot even trust the whole body of the House. We have to go outside, and even then we are not prepared to trust any particular person. We have a flitting personnel of five persons who, for one reason or another, are to be the nominal heads of certain organisations. We put it into the hands of those gentlemen." I have never seen a greater
1010
act of degradation on the part of this Government, and, if accepted, on the part of this House.

I must confess that I find it very difficult to understand where the Minister got this ingenious idea. I do not think that he is particularly in love with it. Certainly he did not grow very eloquent about it in his explanation. He was commendably brief, and did not attempt really seriously to justify his proposition. There has been, undoubtedly, serious opposition to this Bill, which began two years ago, and has been constant ever since. The Minister has been very anxious to please everybody, and, above all, is very anxious to get this Bill, such as it is, through the House of Commons. It is generally agreed, I think, that it is quite impossible to get this Bill through unchanged. Common decency would prevent that, because, after all, two years ago it had opposition from the whole of the Conservative party. For instance, the Postmaster-General was very clear about it, and described it as a crazy method—

Exactly. What I wished to explain was why this change came about, the reason being to conciliate opposition. But I am going to suggest to those who, like myself, do not like this Bill, that, instead of making it better, this will make it worse. This electoral college, as the hon. Member pointed out, is to be a body not constant or permanent, but constantly changing. Except, perhaps, the chairman of the clearing banks, the personnel is every year moving on. Take, for instance, the Chairman of the London County Council. His office comes to an end next March. I assume the appointments are to be made forthwith. The Amendment of the Minister does not say how the electoral college is to be brought into being. Who is to summon it?

I will look at it in a moment. It is quite immaterial. The fact remains, that next March the Chairman of the London County Council goes out of office, and a new one takes his place. The arrangement is that if any member of the board shows inability or misbehaviour he is to be replaced, but the people who are responsible for the appointment will not be in office. They will have gone out, owing to the fact that they are elected in most cases for only one year. There is no precedent for any business or any authority of this kind which could justify a proposal of this character. Just imagine an immense business—take the Underground Route itself. What would the shareholders say if their board of directors were to be appointed by an outside body, and, after they had fulfilled their function, were to disappear? Why, the value of stocks would immediately go down, and there would be a protest meeting. The only precedent I can find is where a company gets in Queer Street, and an official receiver comes in.

The suggestion that a board of directors should be appointed by an electoral college from outside which disappears after it has discharged its function really is only fit for Bedlam. It certainly cannot be justified either by reason or precedent. As for local authorities, there are many examples of great boards of this kind to form precedents. There is the Water Board, and there is the Port of London Authority, both efficient bodies. There you have an example of indirect election, but the appointments are made by popularly constituted authorities who have contact, who are permanent, and if the appointments are unsatisfactory, then the authorities which make the appointments are in existence, can complain, and, at the end of the year, can make fresh appointments. And, of course, those particular bodies are efficient, are well run and, on the whole, give every satisfaction. If it is important to have contact between the public and the administration in the case of water or electricity, it is ten times more important
1012
in the case of London traffic, because however well it may be run and managed, there is bound to be irritation, discontent and grievances which want to be ventilated. When those grievances have to be ventilated, there is no way under this complex, involved and extraordinary machinery to make the grievances heard.

The Government would be well advised to think again before they insist on this particular body. It is not going to make this great experiment—because it is a great experiment—satisfactory to the public Capital to the amount of £100,000,000 is involved, and a population of something like 9,000,000. Surely the subject is entitled to have the security that this great organisation will be run with sympathy and efficiency. If not, there will be no redress from the House of Commons, because these men are irremovable for five years. The House should weigh well a long time before they sanction this peculiar, complex machine. I believe there will be a serious day of reckoning for the London Members if they uphold a machine of this character which would not be tolerated in Yorkshire, Lancashire or any other part of the Empire. No doubt Members will come from the Smoking Room and vote for it at the crack of the party Whip, but if you asked them to have a machine of that kind inflicted on their area for their traffic, the answer would be in the negative. I do hope that this particular proposal will be turned down. The Minister may have his faults, he may be human, but even the most faulty Minister is better than a machine of this kind.

We have just had two speeches on the Amendment, the first one of which was certainly fooling, though I can not say that it was excellent fooling. It had very little to do with the realities of the situation. Most of the remarks of the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) Would have been more appropriate if we had been discussing the actual personnel of the board who are to run this great undertaking. I am one of two Members of the party to which I have the honour to belong who sat for many days upon this Bill in Committee, and I am well aware that in this Amendment we are dealing with the crux of the whole situation. I say to the hon. Member for Limehouse frankly, that I
1013
and others most strongly object to the provision in the Bill, which will remain until it is amended, whereby the persons who will have, as the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) says, the control, not only of an enormous sum of shareholders' money, but also of the traffic facilities of a gigantic population, are to be nominated or dismissed by the Minister. It is clear that under such an arrangement the whole operation is one which does not distinguish it from a national service, except that it to be a Government appointment of people to control private capital. It is a curious combination of two opposite principles.

Speaking broadly, seeing that this body of gentlemen are to look after the traffic interests of this huge population, we should have liked to have had the controlling board appointed, if possible, by representatives of the people who travel. Seeing that they are to control a gigantic sum of amalgamated capital of various interests, on the analogy of an ordinary company we should have liked the people whose money they are to dispose of and manage to have some control also over their appointment. I defy any hon. Member of this Committee, to tell me of any plan which would not be open to enormous objection whereby real control by the people who are going to travel and whose money is at stake could possibly be exercised upon the appointment or dismissal of what is, in fact, a board of directors. How much control has the individual shareholder in an ordinary company over the appointment of the board? He, on the other hand, says, "Here is a board in a good company." I hope that the London Passenger Transport Board will be a very good company. He says, "There are able people there," and they give him confidence to invest. It is simply a question of selecting five independent English gentlemen who have reached distinguished positions in various spheres. One of them is the Chairman of the London County Council who has arrived at a position as distinguished as any position which can be arrived at by anyone in local government. Clearly, he has an immense interest in seeing that the people appointed to run the London passenger transport are the best persons to be found for the office. I am not wedded to this particular proposal. At first sight, I
1014
frankly admit, there seems to be absolutely no connection between Chartered Accountants, Law Societies, clearing house bankers and London passenger traffic, but I do not think that you need any very direct connection at all.

The question which the Committee have to consider is whether the people who will arrive at these decisions—people who are not controlled by the Government and who are not under the thumb of the Minister of Transport at all—are as likely as anybody else to be able to nominate on the board persons who are capable of running this great undertaking. I cannot see any objection to that point of view. You have to have an Appointing Board of some kind, or you have to have the Minister. As I was strongly opposed to the Minister having this matter in his hands, I shall certainly not cavil over the details of the particular appointments. I do not think that it is a very material question. I think that we are making very heavy weather about it, and I dare say that if any hon. Members can suggest someone who is more likely to be better able to appoint a Board to London passenger traffic the Minister and the Government will be quite willing to substitute one for another, or even add another to the appointments. It would not wreck the Bill or make the Bill, and, therefore, it does not very much matter. As long as you have four or five presumably honest, capable, independent English gentlemen to give, in the public interest, a certain amount of time and consideration in making, to the best of their ability, the best appointments it is possible to make in the public interests, I think that the particular five persons indicated are as likely as any other five. Therefore, I regard it as of enormous importance on a vital principle of this Bill that we are to have a body independent of Government appointment. That is the principle, and having secured it, I am not very much concerned who makes the appointments.

I do not think that this is a question which only concerns London traffic. It is a matter of great principle. I was sorry to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto), because he is an old Member of the House who ought to be adamant
1015
in maintaining the privileges of the politician as opposed to the experts outside. Are we doing it? By the Amendment we are creating a precedent whereby the people responsible for the government of the country divest themselves of responsibility for certain appointments. It has always been a subject of gibe that patronage should exist with the Government. They are often criticised on the exercise of that patronage, but, if we put people on the Front Bench opposite, we intend them to have the power of appointment and of responsibility. Would the hon. Member for Barnstaple also appoint this same board to make the appointments usually made by the Government of directors of the Suez Canal Company I want to know whether an old and experienced Member wishes to take that responsibility from the Government? Would he wish to take the power of appointment in connection with the Anglo-Persian Oil Company away from the Government and transfer it to somebody else?

It is private money as well as public money. I will deal with the question of not dealing with public money. I ask the learned Attorney-General whether he thinks the appointment of Bishops would be better transferred from the Prime Minister—even the present Prime Minister—to a bench of Bishops. Would he be content to leave it to the Bishop of London to determine who should be fresh Bishops? I am an Erastian in these circumstances, and I think that everyone in this Committee ought to be Erastian when it comes to depriving the Government of the country of the power of appointment to these very important positions. If we pass this proposal, we shall thereby create a precedent which will be used against public control and the responsibility of public officials in the future. The hon. Gentleman has no right to divest himself of his authority in this matter. He ought not to do it. He divests himself of authority and at the same time enables himself to take cover from comment and criticism in this House. I do not think that that is right. By the power he has of making
1016
these appointments he subjects himself to the criticism of public opinion.

On a point of Order, Sir Dennis. We have left the Minister out of the Bill. We have made a decision upon that matter, and I think that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is out of order. [An HON. MEMBER: "Leave it to the Chair."] I take it that it is not an improper thing for a private Member to draw attention to what may be out of order.

The question is a serious matter for the Committee and not a mere joke in connection with the London Traffic Bill. Here we are removing responsibility and the possibility of public control, and I suggest to the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) that the question of a substitute for the Minister in this Bill depends upon how far you can retain public control and responsibility for those appointments. As far as the Chairman of the London County Council is concerned, we have an appointment which leaves a loophole for public criticism, but it is not public criticism by the body of which we are Members but by the County Council of the action of their chairman. That is a very different pair of shoes. Here we are divesting this House of all authority for London traffic, London being the capital of the Empire, and this being a scheme where it is of infinite importance that public criticism should be able to find a voice. There is only one good thing to be said about the Amendment, and that is in regard to the last part of it which says:
The appointments to be made by the Appointing Trustees shall be made after consultation with such persons as they may think fit.
I cannot imagine these trustees not thinking it fit to consult with the Minister. Therefore, I say of the whole of this Amendment, that in reality it is camouflaged to satisfy the hon. Member for Barnstaple, who says that we are taking the Minister out of it and putting independent gentlemen in his place. But in actual fact the consultation will be with the Minister, and in nine cases out of 10 the suggestion will come from the Minister. It is merely a scheme to try and shield the Minister, and, at the same
1017
time, to placate the hon. Member for Barnstaple. We cannot allow the interests of anything between the hon. Member for Barnstaple and the Government to create a precedent which will work again democracy, public control and the responsibility of the Cabinet for the government of this country.

When I sought to stop the right hon. Gentleman opposite on a point of Order there was no malice in my action. The fact is, that when on Tuesday we were discussing an earlier part of the Bill which left the Minister out, the Chairman ruled that we were not then to discuss what was to replace him, and I was ruled out of order because I was discussing a part of the present Amendment. Therefore, I did not see why the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, who happened not to be in the House on that earlier occasion, should be out of order now. I agree with the latter part of his speech. The Minister told us that he wanted the Appointing Trustees to be divorced from political associations. I think I am correctly stating what he said. Let us look at the list of the proposed Appointing Trustees. There is the chairman of the London County Council. He is a gentleman for whom I have the profoundest respect. He lives half-a-mile from me. I vote for him every three years. I stand on the platform with him and denounce the works of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, and the audience, quite naturally, cheers me, because the right hon. Gentleman's supporters are absent.

Next, we come to a representative of the advisory committee. 'Who are the advisory committee? They are nearly all politicians. The one I know best is another neighbour of mine. He also lives half-a-mile from me. I refer to the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth (Sir H. Jackson). Certainly, they are nearly all politicians. You have only to look at them to realise that. Those who do not call themselves politicians in the sense of a full time job are trade union officials, who are politicians most of their time. This is not necessarily a body divorced from politics. It is a body of people who may in fact be very active politicians. Therefore, the argument that this body must be divorced from politics does not seem to me a very impressive one.

1018
I have an apology to make to the Minister. On Tuesday night I wondered how these people were going to do their job, but there is an Amendment which appears at the top of page 151, in the name of the Minister of Transport. To move the following Schedule:
Constitution and proceedings of Appointing Trustees.
There we have laid down the constitution of the appointing trustees, and how they are going to do their business. I was, however, led astray by the Minister's Amendment on page 117 relating to the constitution and proceedings of the appointing trustees, and the Minister there calls it the First Schedule. When I turn up the First Schedule of the Bill, I find that it obviously has no connection with this matter. Therefore, it is a little unfortunate that that reference misled many of us and that we did not realise that the Minister had provided some machinery to enable these impartial gentlemen—I believe they are impartial or that they would behave impartially—to perform their functions.

These gentlemen have to do some interesting things as regards appointing the board. For example, they have to decide whether a man is suffering from inability or has been guilty of misbehaviour. I do not know what these phrases exactly mean, but, so far as inability is concerned, I believe it means that a man has come under the Board of Control for mental deficiency, or something of that sort. In that case, what is wanted are the Visiting Justices and not the appointing trustees. What does misbehaviour mean? I suppose it means being convicted for drawing a horse in the Irish sweep, or something of that sort. If a man has really been certified, I should think that, obviously, he would go off the board. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Well, it is customary.

I am very sorry if I have offended, but we are here setting up a body of people who are to perform certain functions, and I am assuming that we are entitled to study the functions that they have to perform. It was in that relation that I was consideing their composition. We may reject this Amendment, and, if we do so, the Bill is dead
1019
in its present form. You cannot proceed with the rest of the Bill if this Amendment is rejected, because there will be no means then of bringing the board into being unless new Amendments are put down. In these circumstances, if we reject this Amendment all the Bill goes. With great respect, I suggest that we are entitled to consider not merely how we are creating this body but what it has to do when it has been created.

I always do my best to keep myself in Order. When we come to the second Clause, we define what the board shall do and in other Clauses what payments are to be made. For the moment we are considering the appointment of a body of people and I am considering only the things which arise on the first Clause. That body of people, in the first place, has to appoint the board who are to perform certain functions. The right hon. Gentleman who spoke last said that this is all camouflage; that these Trustees will consult the Minister before they perform their functions. I think that is very probable. I see that the Minister, according to the Schedule which has to be based on the Amendment which we are now considering has to
take such steps as may he necessary as soon as may be after the passing of this Act for summoning the first meeting of the Appointing Trustees.
Let us assume that the Act has received the Royal Assent and the Minister writes to the chairman of the London County Council, the representative of the Advisory Committee, the chairman of the Committee of London Clearing Bankers, the President of the Law Society, the President of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales, and such other people as we may add to the list if any of the Amendments which appear on the Order Paper are passed. There may be the chairman of the Trades Union Congress, or the chairman of the Co-operative Union. The latter gentleman would probably not be very much impressed with the Act because he would see that under it there is to be no dividend, and where there is no "divi" there is no "Co-op." He would, there-
1020
fore, probably refuse to serve. However, we will assume that the Minister has summoned the first meeting to be held in those palatial premises designed by Adam—not the Adam who lived in the Garden of Eden, but the subsequent Adam—and he would say to them: "Well gentlemen, an Act of Parliament has been passed which imposes upon you certain duties. If you like you need not perform them. There is no penalty if you do not perform them." That is rather interesting. I do not know whether the Minister has seen them and obtained their consent to serve.

Do they realise what liability they have accepted, because their functions are not concluded when they have appointed these people? Very serious functions arise later on, but we will not get on to that stage now; otherwise, the Chairman may rule me out of order, as he did when I was talking on the question of inability. Well, the Minister calls these gentlemen together, and he says, "Here we are, gentlemen. You have to appoint a body of gentlemen to run London transport." If they are sensible they will say, "We do not know much about London transport" except perhaps the chairman of the London County Council and the representative of the Advisory Committee, who will be rather prejudiced and will ignore what they say. What about the impartial gentlemen—the chairman of the Committee of London Clearing Bankers, the President of the Law Society, who lives in Bristol, and the president of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales who may live any where except Scotland. He probably will be a Scotsman, but he will be domiciled either in England or Wales.

The Minister will have got them together, and they will say: "We do not know anything about this job. Your Department has been on this job for about six years. It has been rather unfortunate for the reputation of the Minister of Transport in the meantime; nevertheless, having given a faithful study to this problem, we are certain that you never contemplated a scheme like this without knowing what you want." The Minister will say: "Of course, we have spent a great deal of
1021
time considering the problem. As a matter of fact, we have the board fixed up, if you will do what is necessary." He will then proceed to suggest that there is only one man who knows anything about London transport, and that is Lord Oakmeadow. He is the man for the job of chairman, especially as hon. Members will note that the chairman is not to be a Member of the Commons House of Parliament. Why you should exclude a Member of the Commons House of Parliament and not apply the same principle to noble Lords along the passage, I do not understand. I suppose we shall be told that it is advisable to leave the Commons out; otherwise, you could not appoint Lord Oakmeadow, and then the show would not work at all.

After a certain amount of discussion the three independent men, who may never have met Lord Oakmeadow, agree to his appointment, because the other two fellows, who are great pals of his, agree that he is the ideal man for the job. Therefore, he would be appointed chairman, and, naturally, they would have some discussion about remuneration. Of course, they would have his consent before they appoint him, but they would probably send for him and say: "Will you take this on? You are to be the chairman." He will agree, and then it will be fixed up. What about a deputy? He will say: "Well, sometimes I shall want to be away a bit. It is really a one man job if you know your business, but I must have a deputy." I know the very man for the job—Mr. Shovel. He is perfectly fitted for the position. Thereupon, Mr. Shovel will be appointed. The Act says there is to be a chairman and six other members of the board. But they do not want the other five members to do very much, so they would say to the chairman of the Committee of London Clearing Bankers: "You are probably the head of some great bank and may have a few elderly directors you will be glad to get rid of. Will you assist us? We could do with a couple of guinea pigs that you might recommend." The members of the board must "have shown capacity." The word in the Bill is "have" not necessarily "possess." They must have
shown capacity, in transport, industrial, commercial or financial matters or in the conduct of public affairs.1022
Then they would turn to the president of the Law Society, who would have some pernickety old lawyer on his committee that he wants to get rid of. He might not
have shown capacity in transport, industrial, commercial or financial matters.
but he would be saved because perhaps he might have been chairman of an urban district council and he would have shown capacity
in the conduct of public affairs.
But there would he still two more to be appointed. They would then turn to the president of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales, but his really best man has been spoiled for serving because he is acting as adviser. All the other good people belong to the Incorporated Accountants, and a real difficulty would arise there. But there is an institution called the London Society of Accountants and as this is a London Traffic problem perhaps they would get the additional couple required to constitute the board from that quarter.

I have dealt with this matter frivolously because I do not believe in this Bill, and I feel that the more ridicule that I can pour upon it the more I shall be serving a useful purpose. I believe that this Bill is incapable of performing its functions. I do not believe that the body of people proposed or any other body of people are competent to build up a board that will do this job. We have been dominated by one idea, namely, that you cannot construct tubes because they are run at a loss and therefore you have to subsidise them out of the omnibuses. That is the dominating idea underlining this Bill, which no one has examined. The proposition has been propounded by one eminent person, and everybody accepts it. I have made this speech and other speeches because I want to destroy this Bill, and I believe if I succeed in destroying this Amendment the Bill will be destroyed.

The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) has made a very entertaining speech, and I congratulate him on having the time at his disposal to prepare it. He has, quite frankly said, and it is a candour for which we have to thank him, that his idea is to destroy the Bill. The
1023
Committee can form its own idea as to whether it agrees with him in his desire to destroy the Bill. The hon. Member has a perfect right to his own opinions. I make no complaint about the hon. Member having expressed his opinion which he has done so delightfully and eloquently. If the Committee's purpose is to destroy the Bill, then let us get on with the work. If, on the other hand, it is not the Committee's purpose to destroy the Bill, equally let us get on with the work. I think the speeches that have been made so far have been been most helpful in bringing the question to a head. I still think that the Government's proposals, subject to the Amendments that will shortly be made, are proposals which we can commend to the House. The right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) used an expression which astonished me. I commend it to the attention of the Committee. He claimed that this House ought to protect what he calls the politician's privileges. If there is anything that has conduced to the ill-repute of this House in the past it has been the idea that it exists to protect the politician's privileges. I thought I was back in the days of the Duke of Newcastle and the 18th century.

The Government's proposal is not to protect the privileges of the politician, but to try and select people of repute and integrity who can be trusted, after proper consultation with the bodies they represent, to appoint a proper board to manage this vast undertaking. I am not suggesting that there are not other gentlemen equally honourable and equally competent, but you must choose somebody to fulfil this duty, and once we have got rid of the Minister—there is a great deal to be said for the Minister but the Committee has already decided that question—the whole point is, who shall we put into the Bill as the appointing body. Subject to a consideration of the, various suggestions on the Order Paper I think that the suggestion of the Government is as good as any. I hope the Committee will forgive me for suggesting that it may not be inconvenient if we consider whether there are any better proposals than those of the Government.

I want to deal with one point made by the Attorney-General. It raises an entirely new and novel question so far as this Bill is concerned. He has said that these various gentlemen are going to act after consultation with the bodies they represent. That is an entirely new conception. Up to now I thought that the President of the Law Society was put in as an eminent person, but we now hear that he is to consult the Law Society as regards the operations of the appointing trustees.

The hon. and learned Member has entirely misunderstood me. I can assure him that I did not intend to convey that impression. The last line in the Amendment says:
After consultation with such persons as they may think fit.

If I used the word "represent" it was a mistake, because they will consult with anybody they may think fit. I never intended to suggest that they are the mere mouthpiece of the bodies of which they are the head.

I am much obliged. The right hon. and learned Gentleman used the word "represent," and it naturally introduces an entirely new conception if these persons are going to act as representatives. I accept what the learned Attorney-General has said, that it was just a slip of the tongue, and that these people are individuals and not representatives. Therefore, that point goes. The other matter is this. It is absolutely essential in our submission, having got rid of the Minister, to devise a businesslike method of dealing with the question. This is a serious problem. If the Transport Board is to function properly it is essential that the public should be satisfied that there is an effective public control over the board. That is fundamental. This House has set up the board. We are responsible for this scheme and this system, and it is our responsibility, whatever our views may be, to find some businesslike arrangement which will lead to efficient public con-
1025
trol. Look at the position of these gentlemen. You have a board which consists of five persons. There is no provision as regards a quorum, that is to say, that any two of them, or even one if all the others do not turn up, can act alone. There is nothing to say that a certain number have to be present at any particular meeting. There is nothing to compel them to attend the meeting, or indeed to make it necessary for them to put themselves out to attend meetings. All except one will change their offices annually. He is the representative of the Advisory Committee, who is to hold office for three years. Presumably he will be the dominating factor in this body, because he will be the only one representing a continuity of personnel.

The other members will change at different times in the year. You will not have a new body coming into office on the 1st January because the Chairman of the London County Council takes office in March and the President of the Law Society sometime in the autumn. You will therefore have a body which is in a continual state of flux as regards personnel, with no continuity of responsibility in the personnel whatever. You are going to ask that body to act as if it had continuous responsibility. We are asking them to continually supervise the board, to take upon themselves the onus of seeing that the board carry out their job. That is why they are given the power of dismissal. How can it be said when you have a changing body of this sort with no continuity, no responsibility beyond their year of office, that you are going to get a body which is fit to protect the public. I ask the Government whether it is not possible to get a body which will have continuous responsibility to the public and avoid people dodging in and out in this fashion, feeling no responsibility after their term of office ends. The President of the Law Society when he goes out of office washes his hands of the whole thing. He has no further interest in it. Is there not some way of devising a body which will feel a continuous responsibility to the public, something which is not what has been described as a ragtime body. In the cause of efficiency I ask that some body shall be set up which at least has continuous responsibility.

There is one point upon which I should like some information before we proceed to the vote, and perhaps the Minister of Transport after consultation with the Attorney-General will be able to explain it. I understand that the purpose of legislation is not only to cover the immediate needs of the case but also to provide for such contingencies as may reasonably arise. Many an Act has been put on the Statute Book which has afterwards occupied the attention of the courts and used the monies of the people to no inconsiderable extent, and if there is an obvious flaw in a Bill, which we can see at the time it is discussed in this House, I suggest that that is the time and place to remedy it. The proposal of the Government is to impose an obligation upon certain bodies in this country. It is not a question of obtaining the consent of the particular individuals who occupy the particular positions; it places upon the Law Society and the Institute of Chartered Accountants the obligation that their presidents shall undertake certain important duties connected with the administration of a very large and important concern. It is not true to say that because they are going to appoint people to control this concern that they are not actually controlling it themselves, because they will have to examine minutely the ability, the power and the experience, of those persons whom they appoint; and it will ultimately mean that they themselves are controlling the traffic of London. Let us suppose that the President of the Law Society happens to be a lawyer practising in Bristol and that he conscientiously and honestly feels that neither his time nor his experience entitles him to decide who are the best persons to control the London traffic. Suppose that he turns up at the meeting of the committee and says, "I have come because I am compelled by law to come, but I feel conscientiously and honestly that I cannot take part in these deliberations." Is he going to be penalised in any way for the breach of the law he has committed by not undertaking the duties imposed upon him?

I have allowed the hon. Member to develop his argument so far and I find that it is hardly relevant to the Amendment now before the Committee. It will be open for him to raise
1027
the matter on a later Amendment or he can put down an Amendment raising the specific point.

I bow to your ruling, but I should be greatly obliged if you would permit me to carry the point a little further in order to enable you to understand what I am driving at. The Amendment says that we are to appoint these people, and I am trying to point out that although the Law Society say that they are prepared to undertake this duty it is absurd to place upon any future President of the Law Society the obligation to perform these duties during his term of office if he really and conscientiously believes that he cannot act, if he personally feels he is not the right and proper person to act.

The hon. Member's further observations have confirmed me in my view that the point is not relevant to this Amendment. He is dealing with a matter which would have to form a separate and subsequent Amendment.

Then I will leave that. The alternatives to the Amendments which are on the Order Paper mean that the Minister will be the only person, with his official advisers, to have any real control of London traffic on a permanent basis, that he will, with his permanent officials, have to influence these people on the committee except possibly the two who represent public interests. He will have to influence them and persuade them to accept particular individuals for the posts. In the circumstances we ought not to accept the Amendment as it stands. There are several suggested personages who could serve and who do represent some kind of public opinion, particularly in London, and I am not averse to their being on a board of this description, for they understand what is happening with regard to London traffic and they are in a position to give explanations in respect of those matters. They ought to be able to decide who are the best men to fulfil the duties.

I certainly say that we cannot accept the Amendment, even though we may be prepared to accept a Bill of which we are not very fond. We are doing our best to make the Bill as practicable a Measure as possible without hurting the susceptibilities of any people who may be
1028
compelled to undertake positions which they do not desire. The Amendment is not one that can commend itself to this Committee, certainly not to those who sit on the Liberal benches. We hope that the Government will take the earliest opportunity of rectifying what is obviously an error, and provide an alternative by appointing such people of public knowledge who might be anxious to undertake these duties, and not to appoint people who might feel it conscientiously wrong to undertake them.

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 3, at the end, to insert the words:
a representative of the interests of labour engaged in the transport industry within the London Traffic Area appointed by the Minister of Labour after consultation with such bodies representative of those interests as he may think fit.
5.4 p.m.

I rise in response to the appeal of the learned Attorney-General that we should now begin to consider some of the ways of improving this comic circus, the body of appointing trustees. Apart from my Amendment there are others on the Paper containing further proposals. Let me say at the outset that I am entirely against any circus of this kind, a, sort of umbrella under which the Minister can take shelter. I think it is a running away from Government responsibility. But if there is to be an appointing body of this kind ft ought to be far more representative is character than the body suggested in the Bill. There must be scores of people with as good a claim to be on this body as the chairman of the Committee of London Clearing Bankers, the president of the Law Society, and the president of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales. It has been suggested that the president of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers should be appointed. He is as much entitled to serve as the chairman of the Committee of London Clearing Bankers. Other proposals have been made for the appointment of other persons.

The theory of the Attorney-General is that what the Government need is a body of people of honour and integrity who can be trusted. I suspect that most people have never heard of the Committee of London Clearing Bankers. They may
1029
have heard about the Institute of Chartered Accountants. But the public is not going to have any special trust in these people, although they may be men of honour and integrity, because in the public mind these people are nonentities; they are not representatives of the public and cannot claim to speak with any public knowledge. There are people who could sit on this body in a much more representative capacity, people of very considerable experience, some of whom I shall mention. Our proposal is that we should have
a representative of the interests of labour engaged in the transport industry within the London traffic area, appointed by the Minister of Labour after consultation with such bodies representative of those interests as he may think fit.
My Amendment is framed in words taken from the London Traffic Act, which set up the London Traffic Advisory Committee. It seems to me eminently reasonable that on this body of appointing trustees, who are to appoint those who will control the London passenger transport services, those who labour in that industry and whose livelihood is there, ought to have a voice. We would prefer also, in order to democratise the body further, to have representatives of local authorities. If our proposals were accepted the appointing trustees would carry far more weight with the public than they will do as at present proposed. We urge that labour has a special claim for representation. We hope that the learned Attorney-General in his desire to get his Bill through will be prepared to accept some of these proposals. I beg him to believe that men of honour and integrity are not confined to the learned professions, but may be found outside, in the ranks of labour and among representatives of county councils around London as well as in the London County Council. We trust that the Attorney-General will make some concessions to us on this point.

I have listened with great interest to the Mover of this Amendment to the proposed Amendment. He raised a matter to which we have given a good deal of consideration. When we decided to constitute this body of appointing trustees we decided at once
1030
that it was essential that no person connected with or representative of direct interests in the board's undertakings should be included. If the interests of labour in the undertakings were directly represented on the body of appointing trustees, it is evident that the interests of stockholders and others would have to be represented, with the result that the appointing trustees would become a cumbrous body and utterly unfitted for the work which they have to carry out. The Government, therefore, cannot see their way to accept this Amendment to the proposed Amendment. Despite all criticisms, the Government's idea is that this body should be a small body of men who can be trusted to carry out their task satisfactorily and in the best interests of the public; and they cannot see their way to accept proposals for enlarging the body into one representing every kind of interest.

I had no intention of speaking, but after the most interesting speech of the right hon. Gentleman who proposed the Amendment to the proposed Amendment I felt that he had not said all that he might have said about his proposal. One would have thought that the spokesman of a party composed as the right hon. Gentleman's party is could have made a really strong plea for placing on a board of this kind some representative of organised labour. The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) was very strong in his criticism of any kind of body that had not what he called continued responsibility. I understand that in all organisations of trade unions there are continually being changes of chairmen. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] At any rate they do not go on for ever. They are not, like the peerage, on a hereditary basis. I was amazed at the theory put forward by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol. In effect he said that we must never appoint anyone to a body without a continuity of responsibility; in other words that we must never change our officials. That argument completely nullifies the Amendment to the proposed Amendment. All of us welcome the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry. We agree that on this body of appointing trustees we should not have an individual selector
1031
who represents some particular interest. I hope that the Amendment to the proposed Amendment will not be accepted. It has received only half-hearted support from the Socialist party. It should be withdrawn so that we can get on to the more important parts of the original Amendment, on which some of us had hoped to state our views earlier in the day.

I was very sorry to hear the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary. The hon. Member who has just spoken has been criticising what he regards as the inconsistency of our approach to this question. I am sure he knows that the official Opposition have been particularly insistent throughout that the control of appointments to the board should be retained in the hands of the Minister of Transport. That proposal having been defeated and the Minister being now eliminated from that responsibility we must necessarily look for the next best angle from which to approach this matter, and see what action can be taken to secure the most representative body possible.

I have an Amendment on the Paper regarding the appointment of a representative of the Trade Union Congress but I understand that you, Sir Dennis, consider that the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield covers all the points submitted in these other Amendments on this subject and therefore I do not propose to move my Amendment. I take this opportunity, however, of saying that I regret that the Minister cannot see his way to include the chairman of the Trade Union Congress. I am sure every one desires that when the Bill becomes law there should be the greatest possible amount of public confidence in its administration, and I can imagine no representative more worthy of receiving the sanction and endorsement of the public generally, or more likely to receive it than the chairman of the Trade Union Congress. After all, these questions of transport very largely affect the working people of this country, and the close association which the chairman of the Trade Union Congress has with the workpeople generally and with those engaged in this industry, would in my opinion render him capable
1032
of giving very efficient service. I feel sure that the Government in the line which they are taking are not availing themselves of the reservoir of information and ability which is at their disposal in this matter. I feel that if they took the course which we propose they would not only smooth the working of this Measure, but would gain the co-operation of the workers and the public and prevent a great amount of criticism and misunderstanding.

It is suggested that to select an individual from a body such as the Trade Union Congress would be to select a representative of a special interest, and that it would then become necessary to look round for representatives of other interests. I think it will be agreed, however, that the interests of shareholders and others concerned would not be ignored by the type of representation which the Government propose. I hope, however, that the Government have not finally made up their mind upon this matter. I hope that they will think again, and will take into consideration the fact that the Trade Union Congress is a body in touch with the trade union organisation which deals with the work people engaged in the industry. The daily experience of these workers in their ordinary avocations is known to their trade union organisation, and such information placed at the disposal of the appointing trustees would enable them to have a better picture of what they have to do than would otherwise be available to them.

It is all moonshine and nonsense to say that you can separate all these matters from the question of the representation of certain interests in some way or other, or that you can make a body so completely impartial as the hon. Gentleman opposite seemed to suggest. All our experience shows that efforts which have been made in that respect in other directions, however laudable, have never been fully successful. I am not suggesting in any sense, shape or form anything against the capacity of the representatives whom the Government propose to invite to act on this body. I think the Government will get some very capable men, and I am not under-estimating their qualifications or their desire to render service. But the Government are placing a definite limitation on their field of choice by the mention
1033
of these names, and they are not availing themselves of the experience and ability and the wealth of helpful suggestions and valuable co—operation which is at their disposal and which would add very substantially to the success of the working of this Measure. I hope that even yet the Government will agree to our proposal.

The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) apparently cannot see that there is any continuity of responsibility in the case of representatives of the trade union movement. His inability to do so is due, not to the fact that the continuity of responsibility is not there, but to the fact that he knows so little about the trade union movement. As a matter of fact in the trade union movement to-day, as the Attorney-General knows, there are many men who have continuous responsibility over periods of years, and from that point of view it would not be difficult to find a representative of the trade union movement who held a position of responsibility which was reasonably continuous in connection with that movement. It would certainly be possible to find one with a much more continuous responsibility than that attaching to some of the positions suggested by the Government. The Parliamentary Secretary has said that the Ministry do not desire that anybody with a direct interest in London transport should be appointed to this body. Can the Government give us any assurance that the appointment of some of the people suggested in their own proposal will not involve the very position which they say they desire to avoid?

I would remind the hon. Member that he must now confine his remarks to the proposal for an additional representative contained in the Amendment to the Amendment, instead of discussing the original Amendment.

I certainly do not desire to go outside your Ruling, Sir Dennis, but I thought it would be in order in making a comparison between the proposal in our Amendment and the original Amendment. However, to return to the point with which I was dealing, I submit that the chairman of the Trade Union Congress, for instance, might easily hold that position for many years.
1034
In fact there have been holders of that office who have continued in it for several years, and many of the men actually engaged in the transport industry within the London area are trade union representatives holding responsible positions for considerable periods. Therefore, I would ask the Minister to reconsider the determination to which apparently he has come upon this subject.

The industry is made up, broadly, of two sets of people—the people who live in the industry by using their labour, and the people who live on it by using their capital. Those are the two sets of people who make up the industry outside the general public who, through their fares, provide the interest on the capital and the wages. Surely, as between those two sections, the people who only provide the capital and the people who provide the labour by which the interest on the capital is paid, and who take the greatest risk in the transport industry, the latter should have adequate representation. Frankly, I think it would be quite outrageous if no consideration whatever were to be given to those who risk their lives daily in the transport industry. All those suggested up to now by the Government in connection with the formation of this board, are people who, in the general sense, represent not the workers at all but the vested interests involved in the transport industry. I hope that at least some concession will be made to us upon this point, and that the workers engaged in the industry will be given some form of representation on this body.

As I have not made many speeches in favour of the Government upon this Measure I think that when I find myself in sympathy with their point of view I ought to give some of the reasons why I am in favour of the action which they propose to take. In this Amendment to the Amendment, I cannot understand why the Minister of Labour should be chosen to make this appointment. The Minister of Labour has but little connection with questions of transport, and it seems strange that he should be chosen for this purpose. Another point about this proposal is that it would render necessary consultation with the various unions in the transport industry. Obviously one of the unions which would have to be consulted would be the National
1035
Union of Railwaymen, a very powerful body. It would also be necessary to consult the Railway Clerks Association, and the union with which the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) is closely connected, the General and Municipal Workers' Union.

I am not complaining of the fact that these bodies would have to be consulted. I am pointing out the difficulty in which the Minister of Labour would be placed by having the duty of that consultation placed upon him, with all the possibilities of disagreement which would arise. Nobody can disagree more than the heads of these different unions when it comes to making important appointments of this character, and it is for that reason that I think the Government have acted wisely in refusing to accept the Amendment to the Amendment. I am sure it would do nothing else but create chaos, and induce a, great deal of uneasiness

§
in the mind of the Minister of Labour. I am quite sure that the Minister of Transport has no desire to be substituted in this proposal for the Minister of Labour. The Minister of Labour especially at this time has much more important work to do than that which is suggested in the Amendment, and therefore the proposal in the Amendment to the Amendment is one which, I feel, the Committee will regard as utterly unworthy of acceptance. Indeed I do not think that hon. Members of the Opposition should persist in the Amendment. I suggest that it is one which ought to be drawn in order that we may get on to what are obviously going to be very long discussions on the more important matters involved in this Bill.

§
Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 6, at the end, to insert the words:
a representative of the Middlesex County Council.
5.39 p.m.

The Government's proposal is that the only municipal body to be represented is the London County Council, but a remarkable fact relative to this discussion is that Greater London, so-called, is greater both in population and in area than the district represented by the London County Council. The population of the London County Council area is 4,300,000, and that of the London traffic area, as given in the last volume of London Statistics, is 9,140,000, so that the persons concerned particularly with the results of this Bill who live outside the county area are numerically stronger than those who live inside the county area. In these circumstances, surely they should have some definite share in the appointment of the board. Another interesting fact is that the population inside the County of London is steadily and regularly decreasing, whereas the popula-
1038
tion in the extra-London district is equally steadily and regularly increasing.

The official figures are as follow: In the London County Council area there was a decrease of 0.3 per cent. of the population in the decennium 1901–11, with a further decrease of 0.8 per cent. in the decennium 1911–21, and, as shown by the last Census, in the decennium 1921–31 there was a further reduction of over 2 per cent.; whereas, simultaneously, in the decennium 1911–21 there was an increase in the population of extra-London of 9.7 per cent. and in 1921–31 of no less than 27 per cent. In Greater London proper, according to the return, the increase between 1911 and 1921 was 3.2 per cent. and in 1921–31 9.7 per cent. Actually the persons whose interests will be most vitally affected by this Measure are not to be represented at all, whereas a smaller proportion of people are to have this effective voice in the appointment of the directors of the London transport concern. We feel that it is most desirable that the municipal element should be strengthened and that, in addition to the London County Council having a repre-
1039
sentative, the great county councils outside, which have enormous populations interested, should have some voice in the appointments.

The Amendment to the proposed Amendment seeks to give a further representation to county councils other than the London County Council, but we do not think this is necessary, for the reason that the respective county councils mentioned in this and the three succeeding Amendments are well represented on the Appointing Trustees by a representative of the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee. The Committee will notice that we have added largely to the local representation of that Committee by this Bill, and we think that as a result of the changes proposed in Clause 57 and in the Tenth Schedule, the representation of these other county councils is adequately secured.

I will explain, if the hon. Member will give me time. The fact that the Chairman of the London County Council is to be a member of the Appointing Trustees is accounted for by the fact that he represents by far the most populous and important part of the area taken over by the board. I would also point out to the hon. Member that none of the county councils for whom these Amendments have been put down have themselves asked for this extra representation.

That is not the point. The point is that those mentioned by the hon. Member have not, and consequently we see no reason to accept the Amendment. We think the representation of these county councils is adequately secured.

It is an extraordinary thing that when the Government have to deal with any knotty problem they immediately have the idea that democracy must be kept under. When, in the last Amend-
1040
ment, we asked for trade union representation, we were ridiculed by some who know nothing about it. Now we are asking that the public bodies should be more adequately represented. The only people apparently who are to be represented on this body are those who will have an interest in those who have money in the undertakings. Of course, a trade union is only an ordinary working-class body, but what is the Law Society? It is the biggest trade union in the country and has the power to take away the living of a man who does not carry out its rules. When an ordinary body of workpeople ask for representation, they are told that they have some ulterior object.

On a point of Order. Are we discussing the particular Amendment to insert the words:
a representative of the Middlesex County Council
or are we taking all the Amendment dealing with the representation of other county councils together?

We are discussing at the moment the Amendment to insert the words:
a representative of the Middlesex County Council.
None of the following Amendments which propose representation to other county councils are likely to be selected, therefore I will allow a certain amount of latitude on the question of adding representatives of other county councils.

I represent a district of 308,000 people, which is immediately contiguous to the London County Council area. We are responsible for the running of our own municipal tramway service, and consequently we come under
1041
this Bill, which will mean a considerable alteration for us. We are therefore interested in the kind of representation on this body. We can tell before we start what kind of people will be appointed. We know what they will do. They will look after the interests of their friends, and their friends are the people who have the "brass." The interests of the general public will be secondary to the private interests which will be represented by these appointing trustees. The authority which I represent, and of which I have been a member for 28 years, will fight strenuously against the attempt to swamp us on every occasion in our contribution to the development of London government. Because a man happens to be chairman of the largest municipal body in the London area, he is to be appointed automatically, and all the rest of us round London are not to count. We are told that we have personal interests. The people who are to be appointed represent certain interests and are connected with certain people interested in the financial control of London traffic. The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) told us about the continuity of the interest of trade unions. The secretary of our union has been 42 years in that office and is still going strong.

I am going back to the hon. Member for Torquay, and that is going a long way back. Apparently, according to this Bill, the London County Council area is the only one that matters. The wealth of London, however, is made in the areas surrounding London, where the main industries are carried on. The people who travel at 10 o'clock in the morning are not the people who make London traffic. The workers who get up early in the morning and go back late at night are the people who keep the traffic going. They are not the people from the West End, but the poor people from the east, north and south of London. Yet when we ask for representation on a public authority which will closely concern London traffic, we are referred to another board. We shall be bored stiff before we are finished with it.

I think the hon. Member will perhaps gather from what I said just now that I am prepared to allow a certain amount of latitude in this discussion on the principle of having representatives of county councils. I do not think that one can stretch that very far by going into the claims of one county as against another.

I had intended putting down an Amendment urging the representation of Kent County Council, but, when I saw that it was already down in the name of an hon. Gentleman with whom I very rarely agree, I did not put it down and intended to support his Amendment. I submit that there are certain claims why Kent should be represented on this body. I bow to your Ruling that you may not see fit to call all these Amendments; therefore, I want to ask you in what part of the discussion I can put forward the claim for the representation of Kent on this body?

The hon. Member can properly, in dealing with this Amendment, put forward reasons why another county has claims on quite different grounds from Middlesex. If he does that, it is possible he might persuade the Chair that the Amendment with reference to Kent should be called.

May I submit that the position here is rather different because we are not amending a list of representatives of various interests, but we have before us a list of five persons who are chosen because of their public position. If, therefore, we want to suggest that the chairman of the Essex County Council or the chairman of the Kent County Council is as important as the president of the Institute of Chartered Accountants, I suggest that it would be strictly relevant on the question of who should be the Appointing Trustees.

No, strictly speaking, it would not. The discussion must be on the Amendment that
a representative of the Middlesex County Council
be added. The question of other county councils falls—unfortunately, perhaps, from the point of view of some hon. Gentlemen—under the discretion of the Chair, under which certain Amendments are selected and others are not selected.

I want to ask the Attorney-General what is his objection to increasing the size of this appointing body. Another Amendment later deals with the constitution and proceedings of the Appointing Trustees. They seem to be very vague, and I should like to hear
1044
from the Government some details as to how they will proceed—

I am only arguing that there is no reason why this body should not be enlarged by the inclusion of representatives of the county councils. These Appointing Trustees will meet only occasionally when they have a duty to perform. It is no good saying that the board will have the responsibility of administering London traffic. Before we get to the board the only chance we have is to see that the Appointing Trustees appoint the people whom we want. From the point of view of the county from which I come, it is essential that there should be someone on the Appointing Trustees who has local knowledge. The hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) said that this was a London problem, but it affects our constituencies round London most drastically. I will give an example of why Kent should be represented on this electoral college. There are a large number of London railway termini in Kent—Charing Cross, Cannon Street, Holborn, London Bridge, Waterloo, St. Paul's and Victoria. As was said by the hon. Member for West Bermondsey (Dr. Salter), the tendency is for the number of people living within the more restricted area of London to decrease and the number living outside to increase. Coming up to town every day, one sees pouring out of the London termini the tens of thousands of people who have come to work in London. Are we to have nobody on this electoral college who will know the details of their troubles and difficulties? When the rebuilding of Charing Cross bridge was under consideration hundreds of points were put up by small local authorities which had not been realised by the bigger bodies. Other questions have shown that there are real points of difference and conflict between the Kent County Council and the London County Council, although in the past all difficulties have been settled in the most amicable way.

This appointing body will not meet very often, and I can see no objection to its being made a large body, so that every interest may be fully represented. I have dealt so far only with passengers
1045
travelling by train, but anyone who knows Kent as I do, and I have lived there all my life, knows that there are great coastal arterial roads running through the county, which carry an enormous passenger and goods traffic, and questions may arise as to the roads by which certain of this traffic should enter this new and enlarged area. I would point out that London is now corning to have I do not know how many areas. There are the London County Council area, the City of London area and the Metropolitan Police area and now we are to have the London traffic area. The situation is becoming chaotic.

With great respect, before you came in, Captain Bourne, the Chairman gave us to understand that he might not select the later Amendment dealing with Kent, and if I do not give this example now I do not know what opportunity I shall have of raising the point.

That may be the hon. Member's misfortune, but I was present when the Chairman gave his Ruling. It is possible for the hon. Member to argue that local authorities should be represented on this body, but he is now arguing the merits of one particular body.

The road traffic coming into London across these different boundaries will create conflicts with the different county councils, and I submit that representatives who have intimate knowledge of all the different means of access to London should have a say in this matter. As far as I can make out, the proposed London traffic area is a larger area than any of the others to which I have referred. I wish to point out the danger of allowing London to continue to claw away and take in more of the counties surrounding it. London's influence is not good from a county point of view. People come to live in the counties simply to use them as a dormitory, and in my humble opinion they do not have the right county spirit. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I am speaking of what I know. The people who live in my county and in the other surrounding
1046
counties feel they are citizens of London, and it is a great pity that the wonderful county spirit should be lost. We are creating another influence which will make them feel that they are being maintained by this great monster of London, and that is bad for local government in the county. In the last 11 years the numbers in my division have risen from 33,000 to 59,000, and it is a serious matter for us in the county districts when we see the creation of influences which snake the people living there feel more and more that they are Londoners. We want them to take more interest in their districts. I regret that, without breaking the rules of the Chair, I cannot give more details, but on the principle that the county councils should have representatives on this board I support the Amendment.

As one who represents a Middlesex constituency I must say that I think it is really rather good to see the hon. Member for West Bermondsey (Dr. Salter) trying to confer this honour upon the Middlesex County Council. I had thought that this Amendment might be proposed by the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee), who, I understand, has the qualification to speak for the county which is conferred by either owning or leasing a house within its borders; but a number of us have even stronger claims to represent that county, a county which I am glad to say, out of 17 seats returned 17 supporters of the National Government at the last election. Therefore, we are quite entitled to stand up for the claims of our county. I would merely tell this Committee that the Middlesex County Council do not wish for this honour. They are quite content with the Appointing Trustees proposed by the Minister of Transport, and ask for nothing more. If Middlesex is thus satisfied, I think all the other counties round London should also be satisfied. It is quite obvious why the case of this county was selected first, and that is that it has a larger population concerned with this traffic problem than any other county.

My hon. Friend may be somewhat satisfied to know that
1047
I was born a Kentish man. However, at the moment I would not put forward the claims of Kent against those of Middlesex. A very much larger population living in Middlesex will be included in this area than in the area which the Bill covers in Kent. So I think my point stands that if Middlesex is content with the Appointing Trustees as proposed by the Minister the other counties round London ought to be satisfied also, and that is all I have to say.

The hon. and gallant Member has pointed out that I have some connection with Middlesex as living there, and I can also appeal for some sympathy for the other Amendments in my name, having been born in Surrey and having lived for many years in Essex; and I have also spent pleasant holidays in Kent. However, I shall not join in this inter-county conflict. Although the hon. and gallant Member says that the Middlesex County Council have not asked for this enlargement, and do not want it, I am rather puzzled to know why any of these bodies are, included. I gather from the Under-Secretary that it was a case of "Them as ask won't have, and them as don't ask don't want." We have been looking to see whether we could not get the Government out of the difficulty. The Government do not want to be made the common laughing stock of all persons interested in public administration throughout the world, though I can assure them they will be when people realise what a heterogeneous group has been put forward. We suggest that the list should have been drawn up on the basis of getting the services of public persons. I am not saying that they should necessarily be representatives of special interests, but in my view a county councillor of Middlesex is as worthy a person as a member of the Law Society or even as the Chairman of the Committee of London Clearing Bankers. I have worked on committees with representatives of these county councils and have found them very public spirited gentlemen. I think no one will accuse us of having put forward this series of Amendments in a party spirit, because all those county councils have very large Conservative majorities, although as a matter of fact in the case of one Greater London autho-
1048
rity I was on the two representatives of Surrey turned out to be Labour men, which showed that the ability was appreciated apart from politics.

Therefore, I recommend this plan not from the point of view that we are setting up a representative body, because we are not—for the Government have already carried their point that the board shall be appointed by certain irresponsible gentlemen—but from the standpoint that those appointed should be persons of some public experience who have obtained the confidence of the electors, and a representative of the Middlesex County Council is in that position. On the other hand, a member of the Committee of the London Clearing Bankers belongs to a body which has lost the confidence of the whole country. We are frequently told that we want to secure a return of confidence, and there is no confidence in the London Clearing Bankers. We have not very much confidence in the chartered accountants. We say the House ought to select those persons in those great counties who have obtained the popular suffrage, or, perhaps, have been elected unopposed to their respective county councils. Perhaps we shall have some Amendments before the Bill is disposed of, but no attempt so far has been made to deal with the criticism of the extraordinary difficulty the trustees will have in exercising their functions. I agree that it is extremely difficult to set up proper functions for the odd collection of people put forward by the Government. On the other hand, if we take a sensible and logical line, and put on representatives of the London County Council, the Middlesex County Council and other county councils, it will be a comparatively easy thing for the Government to create an appointing body which will have some responsibility to Greater London, and they will save themselves from the ridicule which otherwise they may incur.

I rather regret that the Minister has decided to oppose this Amendment, but I would suggest quite seriously that it is not one for which it is worth dying in the last ditch. One fully recognises the honour paid to the London County Council in placing its chairman on this panel. I do not know whether it is due to respect for the London County
1049
Council, or only to the fact that the London County Council, if the Bill unfortunately becomes law, are going to hold £8,500,000 worth of stock. The ratepayers of London are therefore very deeply interested financially in the success of the proposed new undertaking. That is a claim from the London County Council which cannot be staked out to the same extent in regard to any other local authority. It is unfortunate if one local government authority in an area of 2,000 square miles is to be selected in regard to a seat upon this body.

The Committee is not perhaps aware of the extreme amount of jealousy that exists in outer London as compared with inner London. A selection of this kind tends to make that jealousy all the more acute. The less jealousy there is, the better for local government in the London area. If anything can be done to promote more friendly relations between all the areas in the district, so much the better. The Minister very kindly agreed on Tuesday that the size of the operating board should be increased to seven, the additional two members to be representative of local government in the area. We recognise that one of them is to come from the London area—not the London County Council—and we recognise that the second is to come from the Greater London area. The Minister has already set up that number for the operating board; surely he might spare one place for outer London on the panel which is to select the board. If not one place I suggest he might leave two places, giving one to the counties outside London on the north side, and one to the counties on the south side of the Thames.

I do not think that seven would be too big a panel, and it would bring the travelling public in the Greater London area, into closer relationship with the board that is to be constituted. I suggest that in all seriousness. I believe that it would be an advantage to the scheme of which the Front Bench is so fond. I am sure that they would be only too glad to make the scheme more popular with all of us, and I am suggesting one of the ways in which that could be done. I do not think that it would hurt the framework of the scheme one iota, and it would please a great number of people who are interested in the working of this scheme. If, before the Report stage, the
1050
Minister could devise a method by which this could be brought about, he would give some of us a great deal of pleasure in going into the same Lobby with him.

The hon. Member for Richmond (Sir W. Ray) has as much right, in fact more right, than anybody to interest himself in this subject. He has made a proposal that we should accept the addition of some representatives of local authorities. We have considered this, and I am not prepared to accede to the request. My hon. Friend himself seemed to shrink from having a representative of each of those counties, because his proposal was that we might add two, one representative of the two southern and one representative of the two northern counties. How are you going to secure from which of those counties each of those representatives should be drawn? He did not suggest that.

Do not let me tempt my hon. Friend to make any further suggestions. We have considered the matter. It is not to be supposed that the people that we are suggesting are the only competent or honourable people in the world. You could get an infinity of groups of people equally competent. You must choose, and the point of the Government's selection is that five is about as many as can conveniently discharge the duties. Immediately you appointed a representative of Middlesex, you must do so to Surrey, and I have no doubt that other local authorities would want to join in the hunt. You would soon have a body much too large to be effective. The body may not be ideal in the estimation of every hon. Member of this Committee, but this is a plan which has some coherent purpose behind it. If the hon. Member's suggestions were adopted, we should have to enlarge the body indefinitely and it would cease to be a plan or to have any design. I hope that as we have had this rather full Debate—we have had spokesmen of all the counties from different points of view, and from the hon. Member representing the London interests—we might arrive at a decision on this comparatively small point.

I would like to reinforce the arguments which were used by the hon. Member for Richmond (Sir W. Ray). It seems that in this matter the Government strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. They have already agreed to add two to the members of the board—paid members, you will observe, and paid substantial salaries. What the hon. Member for Richmond is asking is that two unpaid members should be added to the appointing trustees. The Government might accept that suggestion, since they have accepted the other. Having regard to the point as to four counties and only two additional members suggested, we must remember that every one of the trustees will change from year to year and that there will be no difficulty in giving alternate representation to the representatives of Middlesex, Surrey and Kent. The body will be a different one each year. Therefore, the internecine jealousies of surrounding counties might he met in that way. The argument which has been used over and over again by hon. Members against increase of the representation of Middlesex or Kent on the appointing trustees is always that the Middlesex County Council or the Kent County Council have not asked for it. What has that to do with it? We are not legislating in the interests of the county councils, but in the interests of the people in Middlesex or in Kent. This is not a mere question of interests asking for representation; it is whether there shall be any shadow of public control over the body.

I do not believe that hon. Members realise what a deadly precedent we are making in this case. We are, for the first time, publicly stating in an Act of Parliament that no Member of Parliament shall in any circumstances sit upon a Board. This is going to be a precedent for a large number of similar Measures not merely for London traffic, but for the nationalisation of railways. Here we are light-heartedly and deliberately excluding any sort of public control over a body. Observe that the public control asked for in this Amendment is only a very distant control. It is a control of the electorate of Essex over the Essex County Council as to who shall sit as representing the county. The members are not directly elected by the people on to this body of
1052
appointing trustees, which shall ultimately appoint the people who actually direct the undertaking. That is public control at three removes. Surely that is not too much public control to have over a body of this sort. It is not a question of Essex, Middlesex or Kent; it is a question of whether there shall be any element of direct public control. You are giving to these trustees the power of appointing a dictatorship for traffic. You are taking step after step to divorce the board from any sort of public control. I do not think that it is wise.

Let hon. Members for one moment cast their minds two or three years hence. There will be a terrific public agitation through the Press about the stupidities of this board. The unfortunate railway directors hear enough of public criticism at the present time, but the railway directors are at least removable by the shareholders. The people we are dealing with are removable by nobody. They have behind them absolute autocracy over the undertaking. Parliament itself will be unable to ask any questions about it, the Minister of Transport not being responsible for the appointments. Parliament is divesting itself to-day of any sort of control over the undertaking that it is setting up. A good deal of the opposition to this Bill was factious opposition on the part of vested interests, and of a lot of back-bench Conservatives against a radical Measure. If this is your type of a radical Measure, everyone who has the interests of democracy at heart ought to be against this Clause. The least that the Government could do was to give this slight tinge of democratic control by allowing representatives of London county government a voice in the appointment of the dictators of this organisation.

I intervene only for a moment because of what has been said by the hon. Member for Richmond (Sir W. Ray). Perhaps I am influenced a little by being an old colleague of his on the same local government authority, although we have very rarely gone into the same Lobby. When he is right, as he is in this case, I am only too glad to join with him in doing justice to the outside areas. I quite agree with him that there is great jealousy between the inner and the outer authorities. We do not want to have one-
1053
sided politics. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General is a great authority on law, and I would not dare to question any of his decisions on legal matters, but I do not think that he has had very much experience of local administration. I do not think that he realises the tremendous enthusiasm and devoted service of members of local authorities, and how much they are in contact with realities—a good deal more so in many ways that Members of Parliament. They do hard administrative work in the counties, and they do not like being ignored. They are very sensitive about their powers. The Attorney-General seemed to think that there was some insuperable difficulty in adding a couple of representatives—if we cannot get two we might get one—of the outside authorities. There is no difficulty, because there is a precedent in the old London Traffic Act.

We want to show our trust and confidence in the Minister, and to make a practical suggestion. We suggest that the Minister should be allowed to select eight representatives from nominees from the four counties. We have to face the facts and to make this Bill work—to make it fair and just. The Minister happens to represent an Essex division, but his division of Harwich is outside the London traffic area. It would be quite another story if the Harwich division were inside the London traffic area, because there has been no more devoted Member for the Harwich division than the hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport, and, if that division were inside the London traffic area, I am sure that the electors of Clacton, at any rate, would be loud in their outcry if Essex came within this particular scheme and the electors of Clacton had no opportunity of putting forward their claims. I speak as a mere London Member, and am quite disinterested as regards this particular point, but I would ask the Minister to do a kind act to those two splendid Members for South Croydon and Richmond. As loyal supporters they are backing up the Government in regard to a Bill which they do not like, containing many Clauses which they find distasteful. They are doing that out of party loyalty. I suggest to the Government that it would be a reasonable concession to trust the Minister to make a selection from nominations made by the four counties.

I want to refer to the suggestion which has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir W. Ray), and to the Attorney-General's reply. It is not my business to try to defend a very experienced member of a great public body, but I would like to say that my own suggestion would be that there should be a representative of each county. My hon. Friend, however, suggested a compromise and I supported it by a cheer. As an ordinary business man, I cannot see any objection to accepting that compromise. Some of us in this Committee, of whom I am one, feel very sad at having to oppose our own Front Bench. We are in a very difficult position, and I think that on this occasion they might give us this concession, which, though small, is a real one. The Attorney-General described it as a comparatively small matter, but I assure him that it is not a comparatively small matter. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) has already referred to the extraordinarily good work that is done by the local authorities. They do like to feel that they are represented, and, if the Government cannot agree to the addition of a representative of each county round London, I am willing to support the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond that there should be two representatives for Outer London. I beg the Attorney-General, even though he may consider this to be a comparatively small matter, to think it over before Report, and to give us a pledge now that it will be considered.

May I enter into this family discussion, with a view to trying to smooth the troubled waters, by making a suggestion to the Attorney-General? I know how anxious he is feeling that some way should be pointed out by which he can give way to the hon. Members behind him. May I suggest that we should be quite prepared to sacrifice the President of the Law Society, the Chairman of the Committee of London Clearing Bankers, and the President of the Institute of Chartered Accountants, in order to provide three seats for three counties? That would only leave one more place, and the number of appointing trustees would then be only one extra. Surely the Attorney-General will give
1055
just that little bit more. We all remember his explanation two days ago as to why seven was such a happy number for working together. He pointed out that it was better than five. Here he has an opportunity of using this same magic number seven if he likes, or, alternatively, by cutting out the three gentlemen I have mentioned, of reducing the number to six. Although this Bristol gentleman, the President of the Law Society, must be very near to the Attorney-General's heart, I ask him to make this sacrifice in the cause of the unity of the local government of London and of the good feeling between these various bodies, as well as for the sake of the good feeling in his own party.

I have not the slightest intention of joining in the discussion between the representatives of the counties that surround London, but this Amendment has produced a very valuable line which might help the Government. The hon. Member for Richmond (Sir W. Ray) made a most interesting speech in appealing on behalf of the bodies outside the London County Council, but he really gave away the London County Council's case. This body of appointing trustees is supposed to be a body having no particular interest in this matter, but the hon. Member pointed out that the London County Council have £8,500,000 involved. I suggest, not that representatives of Middlesex or any other particular county should be included, but that someone should be appointed on behalf of the County Councils' Association. That would give a perfectly fair choice, and one which would do away with all the troubles that have been referred to in this interesting Debate. Therefore, I suggest that this discussion may yet prove helpful if the Government will follow my advice, and, at any rate, it shows that members of the Socialist party have at last produced a comparatively interesting Amendment.

I appeal to the Government to carry out the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir W. Ray). They have already agreed to something much more difficult, namely, the addition of two members with a knowledge of local affairs to the board
1056
which is going to control the operation of this enormous monopoly. Surely it is equally important that the electoral college should include people with a real knowledge of local government, so that they may select the proper people to constitute the board. At present the only one of the appointing trustees with a really serious knowledge of local government will be the chairman of the London County Council, and surely it would not be a very great concession to strengthen the electoral college by the addition of two members from the counties north and the counties south of the area covered by this enormous monopoly, in order to assist the electoral college in making a really good choice. I am as anxious as anyone to make the undertaking as workable and useful as possible, but the Government appear to intend to ride roughshod over the London Members, and to carry out their will whatever the London Members may think.

I cannot allow it to be supposed that I am going to ride roughshod over my hon. Friend the Member for West Lewisham (Sir P. Dawson). My hon. Friend is so very disarming that I would much rather ride with him than over him. Let me remind the Committee that, although the proposal looks very reasonable at first sight that there should be this addition of two—only a little one—to the appointing trustees, there is no workable Amendment on the Paper, and none has been suggested, for carrying it into effect. I have been trying to think how it would be possible to make a choice between Box and Cox—between Kent and Surrey—of one person to represent two counties. It almost seems to me that it would be necessary to have some Amendment to provide for another little electoral college in order to choose a representative for the two counties. There is indeed no intention of riding roughshod over the Committee. I have listened to all the representations, and I believe that, broadly speaking, the Committee are in agreement with the proposal that these five people should be left to carry out the duties in question. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] At any rate, let it be remembered that the London Traffic Advisory Committee, which is almost entirely composed of representatives of local bodies,
1057
including 64 councils around London, has a representative among the appointing trustees, and, after all, the appointing trustees are not the people who are going to manage the concern; they are merely going to appoint the managers. I hope that I shall not be regarded as coming under the imputation of hardness of heart which has been made against us if I ask the Committee to support this position.

The Attorney-General has said that no constructive Amendment has been put forward containing the terms in which the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir W. Ray) might be put into effect. That, of course, is due to the fact that the proposal was only made in the course of the discussion, but, if the Attorney-General would accept the proposal in principle—and, after all, it is but a small concession, though it would make a very great appeal to sentiment—I am sure that we on this side of the House would be prepared to leave the matter to his further consideration with a view to finding suitable words which might be included on Report.

I cannot accept the proposal in principle, because the principle depends so much upon the form of the device. If, for instance, the device is to be that suggested by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), of having a representative of Kent one year and a representative of Surrey the next, I could not agree to that, and I am sure my hon. Friends would not agree to it. If the device to which I am asked to agree in principle were that Kent and Surrey should hold a sort of election in which they would try to decide which of them should be represented, I could not agree to that in principle. I am honestly unaware at present of the device which my hon. Friends have in mind. If it is intended that some proposal should be put down on Report, I will undertake that the mind of the Government will not be closed to the proposal, and, if a suitable suggestion can be made which seems workable, I am certainly not going to be adamant on the question. It would, however, be
1058
misleading the Committee to undertake to accept any proposal that might be put down. I will certainly consider such a proposal when I see it in concrete form.

May I remind the Attorney-General that the Northern counties of Scotland were for centuries represented in this House in exactly the manner that I have suggested, that is to say, by Members from the different counties alternately in different Parliaments? It is a well established principle, and, seeing that all the other appointing trustees are going to change every year, I do not see why these should not do so as well.

The Attorney-General has paid a fair tribute to the patience that has been displayed in this discussion, and we have no quarrel with the Government except as regards their unfortunate habit of bringing in this Bill. I use the word "habit" because, apparently, it is likely to go on for a very long time. I hope that none of my hon. Friends will allow themselves to fall into the trap set by the Attorney-General. It is obvious that he wants to avoid a vote on this matter by giving a vague promise that he will consider it between now and the Report stage. The way to get the Government to consider the matter on Report is to have the biggest possible vote for the Amendment in the Lobby, because that will show the strength of opinion in the Committee.

As a member of the London County Council, we feel that public authorities should be represented to a much larger extent on this Advisory Committee. As at present proposed, they have only one representative. I am speaking on behalf of working-men all over London, and I am the chairman of the working-men's committee from 62 constituencies. There is a very great fear on the part of the people of London that you are placing the whole of the transit facilities of the Metropolis in the hands of a monopoly which will rule them and rob them for many years to come. I appeal to the Government as a Conser-
1059
vative to allow more popular representation in order to give some degree of confidence to their supporters all over this vast city.

I do not think the Committee ought to decide an important question like this without some one from the county of Cheshire saying a word. After all, some hundreds of my constituents come up to London every year. I am very much disappointed that the Attorney-General has turned this matter down, though he has done it in the most courteous and polite language. I do not think he has given it adequate consideration. I have been informed that not more than a quarter of the county of Middlesex is under the London County Council and that wide area, which is so

§
rapidly growing, will be utterly un-represented in the choice of the board. I feel very strongly that it is of vital importance that we should have some further consideration. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir W. Ray) has made a generous offer, which has been supported by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris). If the Attorney-General or the Minister would say even now that he would consider it on Report, it would obviate the task, always unpleasant to me, of voting against the Government, but, failing that, I shall have no alternative.

§
Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 6, at the end, to insert the words:
the president of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers.
I hope that this Amendment will be taken seriously. Up to the present, the Amendments have dealt with the appointing of representatives of various interests. In my Amendment, I desire to approach the situation from another point of view. I desire to see the selection of a representative who will be able to bring to this body the knowledge and experience which, I think, are necessary if the board is to be efficient, and such as one would expect for this duty. After all, the creation of this electoral college, or so-called Appointing Trustees, is a device to obtain the best possible experience, in various ways, so that the ensuing election of the board shall provide the most suitable people. The duty of the board is to run transport, varying in its nature and type, and extensive in its capacity, perhaps more so than any other in the world.

1062
I must admit I am disappointed that the Ministry of Transport, after exercising their ingenuity to devise this electoral college, have failed so signally to collect the right and proper men to occupy seats in it. In any transport system, in any big system of any description in industry or life, the basis is engineering, as engineering is fundamental to everything. In this particular authority all that they have to do depends upon engineering. It seems strange that no independent engineer, representing the engineering knowledge of the country, has been appointed to this electoral college, with the obvious advantages that would arise in selecting suitable people for the operating body. It is strange to me that this should have been overlooked, inasmuch as the Minister himself is an engineer. I can hardly forgive his overlooking the importance of engineers to the country in almost all our activities.

That is the reason why I listened with amusement to this great combat of interests pure and simple, in the major sense, between the different authorities
1063
for representation, but it did seem strange to me, when it must be the wish of all concerned, that this authority shall act with efficiency from every point of view, carry people in the best and most convenient manner, and that the cost to the community shall be reasonable in all respects. That is why I am so anxious that the Committee should listen to this proposal. I myself am an engineer, and I feel that we should not lose sight of this side of the question, if this authority is to be a really efficient body. I know many people desire that we should carry on as we are doing, but, if this Bill does go through, let us make it a fit and proper instrument for our purpose, because it will be used as a basis for further undertakings which will be set up later. I want to put in a word for the representation of engineering, because I wish that this should be an example to undertakings that may come later. The real worth of engineering itself is continually undervalued. We ought to have a little more recognition of the working professions, as compared with those professions which come after the job is done—bankers, lawyers and accountants. I trust there is a little more hope for this Amendment than there was for those which preceded it.

I desire to support the Amendment to the proposed Amendment. The Mover has made it clear, after the long discussions on the geographical improvement of this part of the Bill, that here is a technical improvement which will be well worth the consideration of the Minister. He has emphasised the reason why some of us, who are provincial Members, are interesting ourselves in the details of the Committee stage of this Bill. It is already obvious, even in this early stage of the Bill in Committee, that this is something very much more than a London Passenger Transport Bill. It is a Bill upon which, in my submission, the House of Commons should do the best possible Committee work it can. We were invited last night by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General to be "realists." That was on another question, but hon. Members, if they are to be realists, must recognise that this Bill may one day be made the foundation for a Measure for the unification of all transport. That is
1064
not an end I desire to see, but that is all the more reason for putting the very best work we can into the Committee stage of this Bill.

It is not for me to suggest which of the proposed members of the Appointing Trustees should be jettisoned. Many hon. Members have suggested that the unfortunate chairman of the Committee of London Clearing Bankers should be jettisoned. His ears must have been burning since four o'clock, but I am not going to make him my chopping-block. There have been suggestions that others should be jettisoned to make room for the representatives of the county councils. The gentleman who is mentioned in the Amendment we propose will be a useful man from the technical point of view. There might be one objection, such as the one which has already been raised in the case of the president of the Law Society. The objection was that he resides in Bristol. I understand he is a solicitor in Bristol, and I think it would be rather curious if the Attorney-General objected to one who is a solicitor and who resides in Bristol. Our nominee resides in Leicester. Is that really a relevant objection. It may have been in the days of stage coaches. Bristol is two hours distant, and Leicester only one hour distant, so that the objection is not a relevant one in these days. We desire to commend this Amendment to the Committee, and to urge that the Minister should give earnest consideration to this matter, although it is quite true that it is an office which varies from year to year.

No one could fail to feel sympathy with the Amendment to the proposed Amendment, but I suggest that it falls into the same category as one we have previously discussed. I think we can dispose of it, possibly, a little more quickly. The president of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers represents one craft out of many which are employed in railway and transport work, and it would indeed be a great problem to select which of the engineering societies should be nominated—civil or electric engineers, the Institute of Transport, or mechanical engineers. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that the board it self would be responsible for the appointment of technical and executive officers including, of course, competent engineers
1065
operating the undertaking under its supervision. I hope that this short explanation, which indicates no lack of sympathy, will appeal to the hon. Member. While sympathising, I must resist this Amendment.

I found it very difficult at first to understand why the Minister was going to refuse this Amendment. Then I understood that my hon. Friends are wrong altogether—their organisation is called by the wrong name. It is called the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. They should have called it the "Incorporated Institute of Mechanical Engineers," and they might have accomplished their end. I gather that one of the troubles of this organisation is that, like the Trades Union Congress, they have dirtied their hands and know their job, contrary to what is the case with those who are to be on this board of trustees. I was a Member of this House after the War and remember the spate of organisations which called for incorporation rights. The crime in connection with this Bill is really to have practical knowledge. If you sit in an office and do nothing but mark a paper, all is well. That applies to the legal profession. I was looking after their interests not long ago when I was sitting on the Solicitors' Bill Committee. I never knew how much affinity I had with the gentlemen in that profession. They are real trade unionists. At one time I found myself defending their minimum wage. The same applies to the Institute of Chartered Accountants. The hon. Gentleman really could not do any other than refuse the Amendment to the proposed Amendment, but I suggest to Members on all sides of the Committee, and particularly to Conservatives, who say that they want to have a sort of co-operative effect upon industry and to face the practical issues, that it is about time they asserted themselves in the Lobby upon this question, which is of vital interest to industry and to the success of the particular board which is to be set up to carry on the transport work of London.

I am able on this occasion very cordially to support the Minister in his attitude. My hon. Friend the Member for Platting (Mr. Chorlton) be longs to the Institution of Mechanical
1066
Engineers and he is interested in this matter. I belong to the Institution of Civil Engineers and I am interested, and the Minister belongs to the Institution of Electrical Engineers, and we see no reason why the Institution of Mechanical Engineers should have an undue preference. Therefore, I associate myself with the Minister, not because he is Minister, but because he is a member, like I am, of an opposition institution.

I do not belong to any institution except this one, and I think that the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment to the proposed Amendment have missed the whole point which the Government keep so well in mind as the guiding principle in selecting the Appointing Trustees. The gentlemen filling the eminent offices mentioned in the Amendment of the learned Attorney-General, we can take it for certain will probably know nothing at all about transport, and that is the very reason why they have been selected. There appears to be only one party which has kept this principle well in mind in addition to the Government, and that is the party of my hon. Friends on the benches above the Gangway, who, I see, propose the appointment of the Chairman of the Cooperative Union. I think that for the reason that we should preserve the principle of being governed by strap-hanging, season-ticket-holders and men of that type, and men with no technical knowledge of transport, we ought to resist the Amendment to the proposed Amendment of the Government.

As one who started life as a solicitor and now belongs to the engineers, if it comes to any test between the President of the Law Society and the President of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, I shall be on the side of the angels in this case and intend to support my hon. Friend the Member for Platting (Mr. Chorlton) who, I hope, will take his Amendment into the Division Lobby.

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 6, at the end, to insert the words:
the chairman of the Co-operative Union.1067
7.19 p.m.

I hope that the Minister will not give the same reply to me as he has given to the Movers of previous Amendments to the proposed Amendment, and say that this is in a. similar category. We move this Amendment because we feel that the Cooperative Union is a definite independent body as fully representative of the travelling public in London as one could find. It is the largest single organisation in the City of London and the most disinterested in this matter of all London organisations. The chairman of this body is eminently fitted for the duty which the Minister is to entrust to the Appointing Trustees. I am at a loss to know why the Minister has divested himself of the responsibility of making these appointments. I should like to know, having divested himself of responsibility, what kind of appointment he expects the body to make. Surely he is not going to leave the appointments entirely to the appointing trustees without any direction or any idea of the selections they intend to make. We believe that the Co-operative Union should be represented, because it has hundreds of thousands of members in London who are mainly of the artisan and working-class population. It has branches and membership in every part of London. If you took a census of the people who use the traffic facilities of London, I do not think that you would find a body of people who use those facilities more than they do. We have in view the possibility that the representatives of the Co-operative Union would have regard solely to the interests of the travelling public, and I shall be glad if the Minister in reply will tell us the considerations which the appointing trustees will have in mind and whether those considerations—

If not, I simply urge that here is a large organisation which is really democratic, representative, and in daily, intimate touch with the whole of the travelling public of London. I do not know whether there is an objection, and I do not know whether I should be in order in asking the Minister to state
1068
his objection, to this person. The Minister, in removing himself from the seat of authority has nominated certain persons to take his place, and I should like to know why they will not be at liberty to include a representative of the Cooperative Union. The Minister will probably say that this body may have special interests. He said that in regard to a previous Amendment. He included all those Amendments in a category of his own description, but which category has not been defined. I should like to know whether he classes the Co-operative Union with the Kent and Surrey County Councils and the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, because if he does he makes a mistake. It has nothing in common with those bodies. It is the most representative body you can find. If the Minister wishes to establish a body of appointing trustees which will have the confidence of the great majority of the people of London, he cannot go wrong by including among the appointing trustees a member of the great artisan population as represented in the co-operative movement. By so doing he will not make a mistake, will not alienate public opinion and will not place upon this body a person distasteful or suspected of having private interests. I urge him to accept our Amendment. It is the most democratic proposal which has come from any part of the Committee.

When the Minister himself ceased to be the appointing authority the great object was that the appointments to the board should be removed from politics, and that is the reason, in my opinion, why it would be a mistake to make the appointment to the appointing trustees which is suggested. The chairman of the Co-operative Union may not be a directly political person, but there is no doubt that there is an element of politics in his union just as there would be if we included—[An HON. MEMBER: "Are not the other bodies?"] Wait a moment. The whole point is, that the trustees whom we are appointing are entirely divorced from politics. You cannot, in our view, say that of this particular gentleman. [An. HON. MEMBER: "What about the London County Council?"] If you were to appoint the chairman of the Co-operative Union as the bead of a great industrial
1069
organisation there would undoubtedly be other industrial organisations who would consider that they had a claim to be appointed to this same position. That is another objection to the proposal put forward, and we cannot possibly accept it.

Really, the hon. and gallant Gentleman has made the most astonishing statement which has yet been made in the course of the arguments on the Committee stage. First of all, he says that none of the persons selected by the Minister have any political bias or allegiance. Does he really expect us to believe that? Does he expect us to behave that the chairman of the London Clearing Bankers is not a very strong Conservative, as is perfectly well known, with a very strong bias for Conservative politics in the whole of his financial and business outlook? Does not he know that the chairman of the Landon County Council is expressly political? He is there as the representative of a political party. That is the reason why he is appointed to the position. Does not he appreciate that the President of the Law Society has political views, and is nearly always a Conservative? I do not think that any hon. or right hon. Gentleman on the benches opposite can mention a case to the contrary. It is the same with regard to the chartered accountants. I am not complaining in the least because they have political views. I do not think that you can ever find anyone who has not political views in this country, but to say that because someone is chairman of the Co-operative Union, therefore his political views disqualify him from being a fit person to be an appointing trustee is an entirely different proposition. If political views disqualify people from accepting a position as an appointing trustee, you must examine the individual and find out if he is a person of strong political views. You do not determine that by defining whether he is President of the Law Society or not. You may have a person with mild political views in that position, or very violent views. You may well have a member of the Conservative party in this House President of the Law Society. Is the hon. Member going to say, if there is a member of the Conservative party in this House who is President of the Law Society, that he
1070
is a man with no political views? There is nothing to exclude him.

The hon. and learned Member must not go on making a speech of this kind; there is no point in it. The point I want to make is, that our appointments are of men who embody the traditions of great institutions. That is the whole point. The hon. and learned Member may deny it if he likes, but our idea is that the chairman of the Law Society and of other bodies which we have selected are men not associated with politics in any sense of the word. They may have their politics just as hon. and right hon. Members have theirs.

That does not really meet the point. The Law Society is not a, political institution and I have never suggested it, nor does the President of the Law Society sit on this body of trustees as representing the Law Society. We have been told that already to-day. I misunderstood something that the Attorney-General said; what I thought he was stating was that he would represent the Law Society. We have now been told specifically that be does represent the Law Society. The Parliamentary Secretary shakes his head. Which way is it? Is the Attorney-General right or is the Parliamentary Secretary right?

I appreciate that, but that does not prevent him from being a political personage in himself. He might be a Member of this House, a Member of the Conservative party, of the Labour party, or of the Liberal party. There is nothing to prevent that and if he is such a person it is idle to say that he has no political bias or view. Take the chairman of the Co-operative Union. Why is he not in exactly the same position? The Co-operative Union is a great body. It
1071
carries through certain lines of propaganda and certain lines of development in education. It may be that the Parliamentary Secretary does not agree with me. The fact remains that the Co-operative Union is a great body. The hon. and gallant Member says that it is not.

I am sorry if I misunderstood my hon. and gallant Friend The chairman of the Co-operative Union is an important person who is well known amongst a very wide public, a vastly wider public than the president of the Law Society. It may be said that there are too many Members of the body of Appointing Trustees already and that another cannot be added. The Parliamentary Secretary argues that although the president of the Law Society is a fit person, because he is independent, the chairman of the Co-operative Union is not a fit person, because he is not independent. That is a point on which I desire to join issue with him most strongly. Why should it be suggested that because a man is chairman of the Co-operative Union he loses his independence of action. He does not lose his independence of action politically, but I am dealing with him as an individual and not as having anything to do with the Co-operative Union.

Does the Co-operative Union subscribe towards the election expenses of any Labour candidate? Has the hon. and learned Member ever known the chairman of the Co-operative Union to be a Conservative or a Liberal?

Certainly, but I have never known the chairman of the London Clearing House Banks to be anything but a Conservative. He may perhaps have been a Liberal, but I associate those two parties together. Certainly, I have never known him to be a Socialist. He has always been a capitalist. So have all the other people always been capitalists. If you want an unbiased opinion it is necessary to mix the Appointing Trustees and not to have them so that they all are necessarily of anti-Labour political complexion. If you want to get confidence you ought to do that. If you are going to consider that side of the matter—I do not think that you ought to do it, but
1072
that is what the Minister is doing—you ought to look on both sides. The chairman of the Co-operative Union is just as big a public figure as the president of the Law Society, and he is a person far more widely known than any of the other people. If any hon. Member went into any conveyance travelling in London and asked 10 people the name of the chairman of the London Clearing House Banks, not one would be able to give the name, and I doubt very much if half the Members of this House could answer the question, unless they had looked up the name for the purpose, as I did on Monday. On the other hand, a great many people who are co-operators would be able to say who was the chairman of the Co-operative Union.

The hon. and learned Member has, it seems to me, wilfully misunderstood the interpretation given by the Parliamentary Secretary. Of course, everybody has political opinions. We are given political opinions when we are given a vote and it is the duty of every person with a vote to exercise their political opinions. The chairman of the Co-operative Union is put in that position not despite his political opinions but because of them. There can be no shadow of doubt about that. The only other poltical case which the hon. and learned Member quoted was that of the chairman of the London County Council. He may be of any political party, but to whatever political party he belongs the fact remains that the question of transport in London is one of the most important things that appertains to his office. The hon. and learned Member said that the chairman of the Clearing House Banks had never been a supporter of the Labour movement, what I call the Socialists, but there is no reason why he should not be. He may in the past have been a Liberal, and I certainly know of Liberals who have been Socialists. But the chairman of the Co-operative Union definitely has to be a Socialist to obtain his office. [HON. MEMBEMS: "No."] In practice that is so.

In view of the statement that has just been made I feel compelled as a co-operator to make a reply. I say, with the greatest respect, that the hon. and gallant Member for North
1073
Battersea (Commander Marsden), has not the remotest idea what be is talking about. The Co-operative Union is not a political society. If the hon. and gallant Member would take the trouble to make inquiry he would find that the chairman is not necessarily a Socialist. I know of a number of chairmen in the past who have been Conservatives or Liberals. The claim is made that the representatives of other societies included in the Government proposals are connected with organisations that may have Socialists, Conservatives or Liberals as their presidents. The same thing applies to the Co-operative Union. The difference that I see is that the Co-operative Union represents in the London area probably more members than the whole of the other organisations mentioned put together. That being so there is no reason why the Co-operative Union should be ignored and treated with apparent contempt, whilst others of far less importance and with much smaller membership are to have representation in the body of people who are going to run this industry.

§
As a co-operator I have particular knowledge of one society which up to comparatively recently was run by the Liberals and prior to that by the Conservatives. The co-operators themselves there only ceased to be Conservatives and at a later date ceased to be Liberals because of the treatment they received from both those political parties; treatment similar to that which it is proposed to give them under this Bill. I hope that this continual ignoring of the very powerful co-operative movement and the sneers of Members in this House will be remembered by co-operators at the next election. In many cases hon. Members opposite are here by co-operative votes. I hope that their sneers will be remembered and that the co-operative electors will turn them out at the next election just as they sent them here.

§
Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."

I beg to move, as an Amendment to move, the proposed Amendment, in line 9, to insert the words:
the president of the Society of Incorporated Accountants and Auditors, the president of the Institute, and the president of the Society, each to act in turn on alternate occasions.

The Amendment is lines 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Potter), and follows the Amendment of which the Committee has just disposed. If it is to be in order it must be moved now as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment of the Government.

Does it interfere with my Amendment, in line 11, to leave out the words "such persons" and to insert instead thereof the words:
the Minister of Transport, the London County Council, and such other local authorities in the London Passenger Transport Area.

I move this Amendment with some diffidence. We have had the greatest difficulty in getting the Government to accept the names of other well-known gentlemen who have been brought forward for consideration. We are told that the basis of the Bill is accountancy and finance and that it requires men of very high commercial qualifications to fill this position. In the case of all combines and amalgamations and great limited companies the administration of affairs is placed in the hands of gentlemen who have accounting, financial and commercial qualifications. The object of the Amendment is to strengthen the position of the Accounting Trustees, to divide the duties which will have to be undertaken by the President of the Institute of Chartered Accountants, who will necessarily by his position have very onerous and numerous duties to perform. It would not be right to place upon him the many and exacting duties which he will have to carry out in connection with this appointment and, therefore, I suggest that, in order to relieve him and to divide the functions, it is desirable to appoint the President of the Society of
1077
Incorporated Accountants to act with him on alternative occasions.

We know the high qualifications of members of the Institute of Chartered Accountants. They are gentlemen of the highest integrity and are called upon to fill very important positions as financial advisers. The same may be said of members of the Society of Incorporated Accountants. By the additional appointment which I suggest we should strengthen the Bill, because we should have the two presidents representing the two great English-speaking bodies of accountants. Many profound problems will arise in connection with this Bill. Questions of high finance will be continually under consideration, and we require the best brains we can possibly obtain. I contend that the Government should seriously consider the desirability of this additional appointment because they will be going a low way to strengthen the position of those who have control of the Bill. We are dealing with a gigantic undertaking involving over £120,000,000 of capital. I am not in any way criticising the appointment of the President of the Law Society, or the other gentlemen as the appointing trustees, but in my humble opinion gentlemen who are constantly called upon to consider the affairs of gigantic undertakings should be considered as eminently qualified to undertake the administration of this gigantic undertaking.

I do not quite gather what the hon. Member means, and perhaps he will explain. He said that they were to act on alternate occasions. Does he mean that one will turn up at one meeting of the trustees and that at the next meeting the other will turn up?

What I mean is that if these two gentlemen are appointed they will be able to divide the functions between them. I think it was quite plain what was in my mind when I suggested the additional appointment.

I desire to support the Amendment but not for the reasons given by the proposer. This is not, I submit, any extension of principle. The principle has already been acknowledged by the Government that great help can be given by some representatives of the accountancy profession, not in the sense
1078
that they would represent the profession but because of their technical knowledge. The point I submit is this; not to suggest any relief to the President of the Institute or the President of the Law Society from work, not at all, that is not a, very sound argument. We should get the best possible representatives from the accountancy profession to help in the work. Unfortunately there is not, as in the legal profession, a fusion under one body. Personally, I should like to see the Institute of Chartered Accountants and the Society of Incorporated Accountants under one body, but as there are two separate bodies I suggest that as opportunity arises—and I see nothing from an administrative point of view which should create any difficulty—that the President of the Institute of Chartered Accountants should be selected on the first occasion and that on a, later occasion the President of the Society should be selected. The existence of these two bodies, and the qualifications of the members of these two bodies, has always been acknowledged in Acts of Parliament when accountancy is being considered, because it has always been provided that bonâ fide accountants shall be members either of the Institute of Chartered Accountants or members of the Society of Incorporated Accountants.

I am unwilling to intervene in any way between the two learned and distinguished societies which have been mentioned in the Debate. We do not wish to pass any aspersion at all on the merits or distinction of the president or chairman of either of those associations. The only object of including the chartered accountants was to include among the Appointing Trustees a gentleman with the experience and knowledge of the life of the world in which chartered accountants move. He would know the business people, and so on, with whom chartered accountants are likely to come in contact. There was no intention at all of shutting out the members of other associations. I think I am right also in saying that these two bodies are not the only two bodies that are representative of accountants. I believe there are at least two other associations, if not three, that represent accountants. The only reason why the Institute of Chartered Accountants was taken was that it happens to be the older
1079
body. We do not for a moment suggest that there was any inferiority on the part of the association for which the Mover of the Amendment to the Amendment has spoken, but, having regard to the fact that we could not put in all the bodies that represented accountants, we naturally took the oldest of the associations share the difficulty of other hon. Gentlemen in knowing how this scheme would work. I do not know quite what "alternate occasions" means. Suppose that one of them is not present on the occasion when he ought to be present, has he lost his turn, or does he reserve it until the next occasion which he can be present? I think the scheme would be very difficult to work and I hope that the Amendment may be withdrawn.

I am delighted that the learned Attorney-General has refused to accept an Amendment which is quite absurd. In appointing a body of this kind how is it possible to choose representatives of the various organisations of accountants, with all their ramifications. Accountants are already well represented on this body, and we have had no reason given why they should be further represented. I am further delighted that the Amendment is to be rejected because there is already on this body too much representation of the professions, what I might call the learned and the semi-learned professions. Moreover, I do not understand the Amendment to the proposed Amendment, and I would ask the hon. Gentleman who moved it to explain it further. What does he mean by the expression, "each to act in turn on alternate occasions?" How is that to be worked out? I hope that someone speaking on behalf of the Society of Incorporated Accountants and Auditors will explain.

I do not like to interpose in these quarrels between learned societies and between hon. Members, which serve only to emphasise the delicious absurdity of the whole scheme of the Government. The Government have in
1080
alternate years different persons from different societies to keep a continuous watch on this board. This Amendment merely carries the process a step further, and I am surprised that the Government have not accepted it. I should have thought that such an Amendment would have rounded off the whole scheme, and would have been welcomed by the Government.

As far as the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) is concerned, I would say that we always appreciate his inquisitorial mind. There is a complete answer to the queries he has raised, as there is, although not in the exact words of the Amendment, to the difficulties which were suggested by the Attorney-General regarding the working of the Amendment. The Government have already, under the present provisions, people who are to serve for one year and to be away the next. The Amendment seeks to provide that such service shall be given one year by the President of the Society of Incorporated Accountants and in the other year by the President of the Institute of Chartered Accountants. Having ventilated the matter, I ask my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment to the proposed Amendment to withdraw it.

Let me try to explain by analogy what was in the minds of the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Potter), who moved the Amendment to the proposed Amendment. There are before us two societies which deal with figures. I regret that my hon. Friend introduced high finance, for I trust that high finance, with its dangers, is not going to be brought into the ambit of this Board of Appointing Trustees. The two societies can be compared by a reference to my own profession. If the Government in its wisdom had decided that those who are injured should have some recognition, in the appointment of authorities they would have before them the choice of the President of the Royal College of Physicians or the President of the Royal College of Surgeons, and both belong to the profession of medicine.

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 11, to leave out the words "such persons" and to insert instead thereof the words:
the Minister of Transport, the London County Council, and such other local authorities in the London Passenger Transport Area.
The procedure that will have to be followed in connection with the Appointing Trustees is at present not clearly set out except that at the end of the Government Amendment it is stated:
The appointments to be made by the Appointing Trustees shall be made after consultation with such persons as they may think fit.
The world is very large and the number of persons whom they can consult under this arrangement is indefinite. By my Amendment I am suggesting some guidance to them in order to secure that the persons consulted shall be persons who are conversant with the needs of London and of the travelling public who are to be served by the new Transport Board. I propose that they shall consult with the Minister of Transport—who is obviously a person to be consulted—with the London County Council which represents 4,500,000 people in this area, and with such other local authorities in the London passenger transport area as they may think fit. It is not possible to enumerate all the other authorities who may be consulted but I think it is important that a guiding principle should be inserted in the Bill as to the kind of people to be consulted in connection with the appointment of this board.

The Minister of Transport can be trusted to take a very large view of these matters. It has been suggested that he will inevitably be consulted, but I think it would be more in order if these words were inserted in the Bill. They would make the intention of the Bill clearer. There is the possibility that for some reason or other the Appointing Trustees might ignore the Minister and consult rather with representatives of interests concerned such as the large companies which own most of these undertakings. I am strengthened in moving this Amendment because in the discussion on previous Amendments about the representation of the various county councils, the Attorney-General referred to
1082
the difficulties in the way of appointing representatives of the various county councils as Trustees. I suggest that my words would to some extent meet the case because it will be understood, when this body meets for the first time, that their line of approach to their task will be to give consideration to the travelling public who after all are most vitally concerned in this matter.

The Amendment is not revolutionary. It does not change the character of the Bill and if it should prove to be the first Amendment accepted by the Minister I suggest that that would be a gesture of the right kind. It would be a recognition of the vast interests concerned in this Bill, in the new traffic area, involving a population of 9,000,000 for whom cheap conditions of satisfactory transport are vital. However well these powers are administered by the new board there is bound to be discontent. It is inevitable. Transport presents such difficulties that even an ideal board could not give satisfaction to everybody concerned, particularly in connection with the arrangements for rush-hour traffic, but if my suggestion were carried out we should at least have the satisfaction of knowing when the new board is constituted that the Appointing Trustees had consulted the various authorities concerned.

I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I did not for a moment accuse him of understanding his own Amendment. I repeat that it is a definitely limiting Amendment. Directly you put names like this into a Bill, as anyone who has been in the House of Commons for a few years knows perfectly well, you definitely limit the effect of the Bill, and if names are put into a clause like this then the people whose names are put in are the only people consulted. This proposal will definitely limit the Trustees in their power of consultation. Furthermore is it not obvious that they would consult the Minister of Transport? If so the Amendment is only putting needless verbiage into the Bill. Then it is suggested that
1083
the London County Council should be consulted. That is only putting more needless verbiage into the Bill and there is nothing I dislike more in this world than needless verbiage.

I notice an hon. Member opposite who represents a London constituency is obviously anxious to rise and to explain the position of the Mover of the Amendment and his friends in this respect. The inclusion of these words may be an intelligent effort on the part of the hon. baronet opposite—who is always so intelligent—to try to meet some of the arguments used on behalf of previous Amendments but we have in the Government Amendment absolute freedom for the Appointing Trustees to consult whoever they like. I hope that the Government will not be led away into accepting an Amendment of this type. I am sure that these Amendments, although doubtless well-meant and well-intentioned, will do no good and that by them hon. Members are only, so to speak, cutting their own throats. Does anyone suppose that a body including the chairman of the London County Council will not have some touch with the London County Council I do not want needlessly to render hon. Members opposite more ridiculous than they already appear by this proposal, but does anyone suppose that the chairman of the London County Council will not consult with the London County Council. I hope that the Mover of the Amendment will do the right thing on this occasion and that having put forward his case and found that there is really nothing at the back of it, he will quietly withdraw this Amendment.

Whatever else may be my anxiety it is not to waste the time of the Committee. The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) knows something about that. All I want to say is that this is a serious Amendment, and it appears to me that the Committee is adopting a singular attitude towards the Minister of Transport in this matter. He is the person most concerned. He will be more concerned than any other, inside or outside the House of Commons, and we want to make sure, if he is not on the appointing body himself, that 31 least he shall be consulted. There is
1084
also a doubt in my mind as to the other people who are to be consulted. I want to make sure that the consultation shall not be exclusively with the representatives of vested interests such as the combine and others whose influence I certainly am not very anxious to see exercised in this particular body. It is a real anxiety on our part to make sure that interests like local authorities shall at least have some word to say in this matter. I do not wish to waste the time of the Committee, so I will sit down, having made a point, which is more than my hon. Friend opposite can say for himself.

The acceptance of this Amendment would have a definitely limiting effect. I fancy that with the words left perfectly vague, the Appointing Trustees have a right to consult anybody. Even without the words, they have a right to consult anyone, but the words themselves are unnecessary. There is a great deal to be said for the Amendment, or at least for that part of it, which makes it clear that it is expected under the Bill, though not demanded, that they should consult the Minister of Transport. The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) said, in his excellent contribution to the Debate, that it had been made clear that, whatever else happened, these people would consult the Minister of Transport on this point. If that had been made clear, I should say that the need for this Amendment was not so great, but I do not think it has been made clear.

It has been assumed—I have assumed it myself—that the person who would be primarily consulted by this Appointing Committee would be the Minister of Transport, but we ought to have it clearly from the Government that they are expected to consult the Minister on this point. It is the sole hold we have over the appointments of this Committee. If a Minister of Transport gets up in future and says, "I was not consulted on this appointment," then we have no control over it, but if it is understood that he is to be consulted, then this House has some standing in the matter. Therefore, it is important that these words should go in. At least we might have an intimation from the Minister of what he expects will happen when the Appointing Com-
1085
mittee meets. It has not been made clear to me whether he himself will or will not be present. It was assumed by one of the speakers behind me that he would be present, but I do not so read the Bill, and that is one of the things we ought to be told, because if he will not be present, it is all the more important that he should be consulted, that the appointments should not be made until the trustees have had at any rate the benefit of the views of the Department concerned. The material at the disposal of the Minister of Transport as to the qualifications of any possible candidate are obviously far in advance of the information which can be in the hands of chartered accountants or whoever it may be.

There is another point. If we put in these two names, then pro tanto we prevent consultation with all the other bodies whose names are not mentioned. To be quite candid, I do not want the councils of the Bankers' Association, the Chartered Accountants' Association, and the Law Society thinking they ought to be consulted about the appointments made by the gentlemen who, in their private capacity and as good private citizens, are going to be in the position of making the appointments. Obviously, it will lead to an infinite amount of canvassing and delay and, I should say, to much worse appointments being made. We do not want these quite unnecessary words of the consultation Clause to be read by the Appointing Trustees as a duty to each individual member to consult with the board of which he is chairman or president before recommending any appointment, and I am sure the Government do not want it. If the Government accept the insertion of these words, they will prevent that and, therefore, make the appointments much more satisfactory.

The right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) stated a real difficulty in inserting the names of any persons; or bodies whom the appointing trustees must consult. My view is that the trustees, once set up, must not be limited in securing all the aid and all the advice which, in their opinion, they need in order to make these important
1086
appointments; and, quite apart from the practical difficulty of consulting, say, the London County Council—it would be a very difficult thing to consult all those people—I am entirely opposed to giving the appointing trustees a job of work of this importance and then saying to them, "You should consult these people and no others." Therefore, while I see the point raised by the hon. Baronet, I ask the Committee to allow the appointing trustees to set out on their task unfettered as to the advice which, in their opinion, they may seek.

I am glad the Minister supports what I said, because I gave the whole of the reasons for rejecting the Amendment. Is there any limitation to this power of consultation? If you allow them to have too much power of consultation, they may never come to a decision at all, and if they do not come to a decision, what happens? We have never been told that, and I should be glad if the Minister could enlighten us on the point. There must be some power in the Ministry to compel them to come to a decision.

Perhaps it would be best if I left it until the Report stage, so that the Minister would have more time in which to consider the point. I
1087
should like to say how pleased I am that the Minister has resisted the wiles of the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris).

Would the Government accept the first four words of the Amendment, so that it would read something like:
after consultation with the Minister of Transport and such persons as they may think fit"?
8.34 p.m.

There would then be complete liberty of action, and they would secure what I think we ought to have, namely, some certainty that the Minister shall be consulted. I think most of us must feel, in a matter of this importance, that the Minister of Transport should be consulted by these Trustees, and if those four words were accepted, the power of the Trustees to approach anybody else would not be limited in any way.

I hope that the Minister will not accept that suggestion. Suppose we have a complete "wash-out" as a Minister, as we had two years ago? I hope that the Minister will not under any circumstances bind these people to consult the Minister of Transport. I have known many bad Ministers. We have now a good one, and I hope that he will not be led into accepting the suggestion by the hon. and learned Member.

I hope that the Minister will not agree from the point of view of the Minister himself. It seems very dangerous to say that these appointing trustees shall consult the Minister for fear that it will give the impression in the country that the appointment when made has the support of the Minister. The appointment will rest entirely in other hands, and the Minister may be put into a false position by it being thought in the country that he was responsible for it. It is important to keep the Minister clear of the appointment.

The remarks of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Sir G. Gillett) justify me in pressing that the Minister should be consulted. Here is an important post of great responsibility, and
1088
a Ministry with all the facts at their disposal, and it is vital that they should be officially, not casually, consulted. It is no use the Minister trying to get out of his responsibility. If he does not like his job and is not prepared to face it, the sooner his Department is wiped out the better. This thing is so important and of such vital concern to the people of London, that Parliament through the Minister cannot disassociate himself from this problem. If my hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury is right, my case for putting such words in it is strengthened.

I support the Government in having people of this kind to make these appointments, but there is a point which I put earlier to which I have had no reply. I understand that the Government wish this type of person to serve because they want to have people who have no direct financial interest in the concern. The Chairman of the London County Council is the direct representative of the county council. Why cannot the Government cut him out and put in instead a representative of the County Councils Association? The Government's position is stultified by having the Chairman of the London County Council because he is a direct representative of a large amount of capital interest which will be dealt with by the board. The other Appointing Trustees are not directly representative in that sense. I have discussed it with one or two influential people who agree with me, and I would ask the Government to consider between now and the Report stage whether it is wise that the body which is to make the appointment should have someone on it who in his elected position has a direct financial interest in this great concern.

We have had a very full Debate on this point, and now the hon. Member wishes to cut out one of these people and to put in someone else. There is no question of these people representing financial interests. We have had such a full discussion that I hope we may now take the Amendment to a Division.

I beg to move, in page 1, line 16, after the first word "The," to insert the words "chairman and other."

8.50 p.m.

This is a purely drafting Amendment, put in to make it plain that it is intended that not only what I may call ordinary members, but the chairman of the board, shall be a person of the wide experience and having the other qualities which are mentioned. It is right to make it perfectly plain that that applies to him as well as to the others.

I beg to move, in page 1, line 19, at the end, to insert the words:
and, in the case of two members, shall be persons who have had not less than six years experience in local government within the London Passenger Transport Area.
This Amendment is intended to provide that two members shall be persons who have had not less than six years experience in local government in the London Passenger Transport Area. I hope it will meet the objections advanced by some hon. Members to the lack of experience in local administration among the Appointing Trustees. Here we are dealing with a body much more closely concerned with the management of this great undertaking than are the Appointing Trustees. I do not know that I need add anything to commend this proposal to the Committee, because on the face of it it is evident what its intention is.

I am afraid we do not regard this as quite so simple a matter as it appears to the Attorney General. It seems to us that he has rather mistaken the arguments in favour of having some local interest among the Appointing Trustees. An entirely different question arises in the case of the board itself. The object is to have a board which is wholly divorced from any special interest at all, a board consisting of people who are appointed merely because of their commercial qualifications and for no other reason. Now an entirely new principle is being introduced. Two of these members are not to be appointed because they are efficient persons to run a transport undertaking, but because they represent local government interests. The hon.
1092
and learned Gentleman disagrees, but I venture to suggest that it is perfectly well known that this Amendment is being inserted in order to satisfy the demand of the local government authorities. They wished to have a board which represented them, and this is a compromise to give them a certain amount of direct representation.

Further, we are not at all certain what six years' experience in local government may mean. Does it mean that the member must have been a member of a local authority? If he has been a guardian or a member of a public assistance committee for six years, does that qualify him? Suppose that there is a man who has been an officer of a local government authority, a man, say, who has been running the London County Council tramways as an officer of the council. Is he a person who has experience in local government? Clearly he has the widest possible experience in running a local government undertaking, but does that enable him to become a member of this Transport Board, or does it mean that such a man must be elected by some local government body? Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be kind enough to answer that question. So far as the merits of this matter are concerned, we certainly oppose introducing any special interest on this board. It was designed to be a board free from any special interest or representation, and we are very sorry that that principle has not been stuck to, because we believe it to be the best principle, in a scheme of this sort, to produce the most efficient result.

I want to ask a question on this matter. It has been partly raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S Cripps). We are asked to insert after the words "in the conduct of public affairs" the words
and, in the case of two members, shall be persons who have had not less than six years' experience in local government within the London passenger transport area.
The words "public affairs" are not defined. If Mr. So-and-so has been for many years on the town council, you would say that he was a man in public life. Accordingly, anybody who has been active in municipal government is a per-
1093
son who has shown capacity in the conduct of public affairs. We are now proceeding to add, if this Amendment be passed, that two of the people shall have had not less than six years' experience in local government. Therefore we shall be deciding that the qualification of two members of the board must have been success in local government and in nothing else. I have a good deal of sympathy with this Amendment. Having regard to the fact that we are now going to transfer from municipal ownership to this mysterious new board a great many undertakings, there will be very material advantages in having on the board people with municipal experience, who will understand the vital necessity of maintaining some degree of contact with the general public. People who are experienced in transport, industrial, commercial or financial matters might not have had the personal and human experience that you will get in people who have served on municipal bodies. I want to ask the learned Attorney-General the question which was addressed to him by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol. Does experience in local government mean the experience of an elected person of a local government authority, or does it include paid service under the local government authority?

It is easy to answer the two questions which have been put by my hon. Friends. The Clause obviously is not one in regard to which it is desirable to have an exact definition. For instance, the first quality desired is that they shall be men of wide experience. You do not need a definition clause to say what is "wide experience." That is a matter which the Appointing Trustees would have to judge for themselves. As long as you are appointing responsible people who understand what is expected of them, they must he trusted to appoint a man whom they think has wide experience. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) will not expect a definition Clause on what is "wide experience." Similarly, when you come to the last words
capacity in the conduct of public affairs,
they are not defined. My hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H.
1094
Williams) asks whether the expression includes a person who has served on, or taken an interest in, some organisation in connection with local government. There, again, it is a matter which the Appointing Trustees, just as the Minister would have to do, will consider for themselves. If the trustees bona fide and reasonably carry out their duties, nobody can gainsay them, but, if they obviously chose somebody who has never had anything to do with public affairs, or has not any of the other qualities, they will be neglecting their duties. Now it is said that the phrase which we ask the Committee to put in, "six years' experience in local government," is vague. It is vague, I agree. I should not like to attempt a definition of "experience in local government." It does not mean the same thing as experience of local government. We all have experience of local government, but most of us have no experience in local government. I think it might honestly be read as including a person, who has been, shall I say, chief engineer, in a big local authority, if it is likely that such a person will have retired and is eligible for this board. I think that the phrase will include a person who has been a member of a local authority. I am not sure whether it would be held to include a person who might have been on a board of guardians.

My answer to the Committee is that I think a proper interpretation and application of this provision must be left to the Appointing Trustees. I do not want the Committee to go back upon the question now that we have agreed to the Appointing Trustees. Let this Clause be interpreted in precisely the same way as it would have been interpreted if the Minister had been the person. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol will agree that if the Bill had been in the form in which it was introduced by Mr. Morrison, the Minister would have had to decide for himself the proper application of these very general terms, "capacity," "knowledge" and "experience in the conduct of public affairs." The Committee is not asked to put in words to represent sectional interests, which is not considered and not intended. The intention is that there shall be two persons who shall be familiar, generally speaking, with the way in which local authorities carry on their
1095
business and the government of the people in their district.

I am much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for giving us the explanation. I asked him the question because it seemed to me that was a precise, rather than a general, term, and admitted more of definition. He has told us that it in fact will cover both servants and persons who are elected.

I think so. If the hon. and learned Gentleman feels that this part ought to be more closely defined, I will gladly give it further consideration. I observed the point myself yesterday, and I came to the conclusion that this general expression was the best that could be devised. I will give it further consideration in order that if necessary we may put in more definite words.

I am much obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Will he just bear in mind when he is doing so that, if a person who does not fall within the definition should be appointed by the appointing trustees, the appointment will of course be ultra vires and the whole of the operations of the board will cease.

It necessarily makes the appointment of such a person ultra vires. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will remember the Jaffe's case in the House of Lords, the effect of which was to lay down that if a thing is once done ultra vires you cannot cure it. It would therefore be a very serious thing if a wrong person were appointed. I hope he will bear that point in mind.

I should like to know the intentions of the Government in this matter. Do they, for instance, regard a man who at this moment is manager of a municipal tramways undertaking as a person who is competent to be put on this board without having retired from that office, and who has been for more than six years in a responsible position in a municipal undertaking? Is such a person qualified to be appointed to serve on the board?

§The following Amendments stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. PYBUS:
In page 2, line 6, leave out the word "Minister," and insert instead thereof the words "Appointing Trustees.In line 13, leave out the word "Minister," and insert instead thereof the words "Appointing Trustees.In line 19, leave out the word "Minister," and insert instead thereof the words "Appointing Trustees.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 6, to leave out the word "Minister," and to insert instead thereof the words "Appointing Trustees."

Perhaps I may point out now the effect of all these three Amendments. In all of them it is proposed to replace the word "Minister" by the words "Appointing Trustees." The provision affected by the Amendment in line 6 is a provision that the Appointing Trustees shall fix the period of the appointment—it is to be for not more than seven and not less than three years. Everyone will agree that, if the Appointing Trustees are to appoint, they must be allowed to fix the period of the appointment. That is accepting the decision of the Committee. The Amendment in line 13 is in connection with the provision with regard to deciding whether a member of the board who is absent for a period of six months is absent for a satisfactory reason, and so on. The Amendment in line 19 will provide that the Appointing Trustees now, instead of the Minister, may remove a member of the board from his office for inability or misbehaviour. I think that, if the Committee accept, as I am sure they wish to accept, and, indeed, they must accept, the decision already arrived at, that the Appointing Trustees are to perform the duties which formerly were to be carried out by the Minister, they will assent to these three Amendments.

I desire to raise an objection to this Amendment. We feel that it is rather dangerous to give to the Appointing Trustees the power to appoint
1097
for a period. Why should this power be given to the Appointing Trustees 2 We find that under Clause 4 the Minister will have power to fix the salaries, and, if the word "Minister" were allowed to remain here, it would at least give to the Minister the power to decide as to the continuance of these appointments. The Appointing Trustees will, of course, change practically every year. What is to be the position of the board in view of a change in the Appointing Trustees every year? Some member of the board may be extremely satisfactory to some of the Appointing Trustees, or to all of them, in the first year of appointment, but, when the Appointing Trustees are changed, it is possible that we may find differences of opinion as to the ability or efficiency of the board.

I think that perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not quite appreciate the fact that the decision as to the length of service must be made at the time of the appointment, so that, w hen a member of the board has been appointed, it is not in the power of somebody else who becomes an Appointing Trustee in the following year either to cut short or to prolong his appointment. He only holds office for the period fixed at the time of his appointment.

My point is that there may be differences of opinion, as I have suggested, and we think that the Minister ought to have the power of deciding as to the period of appointment. If some members of the board are not giving satisfaction, apparently the fact will be reported to the Appointing
1098
Trustees, and they will take it upon themselves either to discharge the member in question or to take some other action, and we think that that is a power which ought not to be given to the Appointing Trustees. We should like the matter to remain in the hands of the Minister. Then the Appointing Trustees could report any case of inefficiency and so on to the Minister, who would have the power to take what action was necessary.

I think I ought to call the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that this is definitely out of order on the Amendment that is now before the Committee. This particular Amendment only deals with the period for which members of the board are originally appointed; it does not affect the question of removal should that be necessary on the ground of incapacity or for any other reason.

We want to retain in the hands of the Minister the power under this sub-section, because we believe that that is right, and would avoid difficulties in the future. We consider that the Minister ought to be given this power in connection with the period of appointment, salaries and other matters—that, although the Minister's power has been eliminated as regards the actual appointment, we ought to reserve to him the right at least to deal with the period of appointment, rather than allowing the whole power to be in the hands of the Appointing Trustees.

No. The Attorney-General has explained the three Amendments, which are all in the same form, but, after the Amendment which is now immediately before the Committee, there is an Amendment in a different form, which will have to be moved first.

§
Question, "That the word 'Minister' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

I hoped the right hon. gentleman would not move this after the discussion we have had. The Appointing Trustees, as we know now, consist of certain persons who change from time to time. That is not a body that will keep continuous attention on the doings of the board. Here we have the case of someone who is going to be absent for six months consecutively, and he has to get the approval of the trustees. It is a very curious body. It may be very difficult to summon it at any particular time, and it is not a body that is going to know what the board is doing. How on earth is it to determine whether it is right or wrong for a member to be absent for more than six months consecutively? It may very well happen that an application for leave of absence may be made and probably all but one of the Appointing Trustees will be entirely new to the business and know nothing about it. They may not be able to meet and they may have no record of what has happened in the past. The member who wants to be away may be a well-known malingerer. They will not know anything about that. They will have no record of the time that he has had off. They will be summoned to meet. They are busy men in important positions. Some may be abroad. They have to be summoned at a moment's notice to decide this question. How on earth are they to judge? What will be the difficulty in leaving it to the Minister? I do not suppose anyone thinks the Minister will have some sinister political influence brought to bear upon him either to grant or to withhold leave of absence.

I am very anxious to do anything we can to meet the views of hon. Members. If it will meet the views of the Committee as a whole, I am prepared to leave the word "Minister" in. It seems to be a duty that can more conveniently be discharged by the Minister.

This is not a question of the appointing trustees doing their job. This is purely a question whether leave of absence can be given by this person or that person. It is a purely Ministerial task which the Minister can very easily perform without any prejudice at all to the unity of the scheme which we have adopted. I hope the hon. Member will agree with the Committee, which is obviously as a whole in favour of leaving it as it is.

Of course, I fully accept what the hon. and learned Gentleman says. My reason for objecting is that if you accept this Amendment now you will make it very much easier for another Minister to take away the whole power of this body and return it to the Minister. [Hoist. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I get support from the front Socialist benches. I have been sufficiently long in this House to know that once you begin inserting small Amendments, such as are put forward so cleverly by the Socialist party—

It seems rather extraordinary that hon. Members opposite should support it in that way. It is their Bill, after all. Ultimately it will prove the thin end of the wedge and make it more easy to return to the position where the Minister has full control.

Let us be quite clear about this. When the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) claimed to have the support of the Front Opposition Bench, the hon. and learned Member for. East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) pointed out that it was moved by the Government. The Government are giving way, as I see it, to the appeal of the Front Bench opposite. All I want to say is that on
1103
the question of discipline on this board, which has to control £100,000,000 of capital—

I am sorry. I have been here during the whole time. I want to point out that the Bill says:
Except for some reason approved by the Minister.
The Amendment is that it should not be the Minister who is so authorised but the Appointing Trustees, and now the Government are giving way and saying that the word, "Minister" should be retained. In any ordinary business concern the executive officer, whoever he was, would have to face a meeting of shareholders, but this is a milk and water method of doing it, for some reason approved by the Minister. It is supposed that we are going to have a remunerative business under these conditions, but this is simply another instance of the hopelessness of this Bill. I do not mind much which it is, whether it is the Appointing 'Trustees or the Minister, but it is further evidence of the hopeless chaos to which this Bill has brought us.

§
Question, "That the word 'Minister' stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.

This is the last opportunity of reserving any power for the Minister under this Clause, and we think it is one of the moat important points of the whole Clause. It is proposed that the appointing trustees should be given power to remove any member of the board from his office for two specific purposes and reasons, and for two only. I want to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman
1104
this question: Suppose that the appointing trustees remove a member from the board for misbehaviour, and it is held by the courts on an action against the appointing trustees that he has not committed that which is properly called misbehaviour. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman tell us who is responsible and who pays the damages in that action? Is it the appointing trustees personally or the Law Society or the Clearing Bankers or is it the Minister? Clearly, the people who ought to pay the damage are the nation through the Minister and the Exchequer, for they have set up these appointing trustees as trustees for the people. The beneficiaries in trust apparently are the London public, and it seems rather hard that you should open out for these very respectful gentlemen an action by members of the board for wrongful dismissal on a very difficult and technical sub-section.

Clause 6 is very difficult. The only right of dismissal you are given is for two specific reasons. It is not the ordinary right of dismissal of a servant for not performing his duties properly, as to which there are many deciding cases. Here you have the two words, "inability or misbehaviour," both of which have to be interpreted by the courts. I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman will acknowledge that "inability" is a very difficult term to interpret. Does it mean that the gentleman has to be incapable of moving from his house to the office, or that he has to be mentally unable to perform the duties, or physically unable? It is the same as regards misbehaviour. I suggest that when you give the power that this Clause gives, apart from the point as to whether the Minister is the right person to exercise it, it is not fair to put the onus upon people like the Appointing Trustees who will be open to what may be a very serious matter, because, if the chairman of this body were removed for misbehaviour and the courts found that he was wrongfully dismissed, the damages might be enormously heavy. Presumably he would be a person getting from £10,000 to £15,000 a year or some such figure, and, if he got damages on that basis against the President of the Law Society, I can well see that they would be unable to get a president in future,
1105
and that this might entirely defeat even the clearing bankers.

Everyone will be most unwilling to take the job which apparently has to have fixed to it, by law, this duty to appoint the board, and which they cannot get out of. Apparently, once one is made president of the Law Society, it is no good saying you do not want to appoint. You are an Appointing Trustee and yen have to take the liability which attaches to that particular office. In these circum- stances, apart from anything else, we think the Minister should be the man to take the responsibility for exercising this extraordinarily difficult task. Then there is a general consideration, which I do not want to stress again, for it has been fully stressed. We believe that the Minister is the only person who can be in touch with what is happening. The Appointing Trustees have no possible means of ascertaining what is happening. They have no means of knowing whether the man is misbehaving as a member of the board or not. Therefore, it is idle to give them a power which they can never properly discharge. For these reasons, we shall certainly resist this Amendment most strongly.

One would think that the words in the Bill, "inability or misbehaviour," were words which we or the Minister had invented. The hon. and learned Gentleman seems to be unaware of the fact that for something like 50 years or more the words have been the precise words used in connection with the power, for instance, of the Lord Chancellor to remove a county court judge who is unable to perform his duties. My hon. and learned Friend now says that that is quite right. He did not say when he was making his speech that that was where the words were to be found.

All I can say is, if that is so, that they must be extremely good words. I think it is a testimonial to the exactness of the language which we have put in. Those words have been put into operation on more than one occasion, and I venture to think
1106
that as there has never been any difficulty in the past in interpreting them, so there will be no difficulty in the future. Whether inability is physical inability or mental inability, inability is inability. If I were to reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman by examining him, I should like to ask him how he distinguishes between mental and physical inability. Mental inability is very often the result of physical inability, and physical inability is the result of the other. The fact is that inability means inability or disability to perform your task. I should think that most people would have no difficulty, as the Lord Chancellor has had no difficulty, in applying that meaning.

I do not agree that it will be wrongful dismissal at all. It will be something in the nature of an unauthorised act, what lawyers call a tort. These people are not the servants of the Appointing Trustees. You cannot bring an action for wrongful dismissal against somebody else who is not your master. The Appointing Trustees are not the masters, and neither would the Minister be the master if he were appointing them. The hon. and learned Gentleman is really considering the position from a lawyer's point of view. He has propounded a question which to the layman looks very terrifying, but if he would reflect upon the position which would exist if the Minister were the appointing person, he would see that there would be no better remedy than there would if the Appointing Trustees were the persons.

The learned Attorney-General has horrified me by what he said a moment ago. I was in sympathy with him until he said that if a man is wrongfully dismissed by the Appointing Trustees, the person wrongfully dismissed has no action against anybody.

The learned Attorney-General said that you could not bring an action for wrongful dismissal against a person who was not your employer. The Appointing Trustees are not employers. The Appointing Trustees can dismiss. No action can lie against the Appointing Trustees.

Suppose they remove a man wrongfully, can he bring an action against anybody? The Attorney-General told us, I think, that he could not bring an action against the Appointing Trustees because they were not his employers. Obviously the man cannot bring an action against anybody else, because nobody else dismissed him. In those circumstances, against whom can the removed person bring an action?

I dare say it does. I did not pretend to be otherwise. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite put a question as to what is to happen in the case of an action for wrongful dismissal. My answer is that you cannot have an action for wrongful dismissal, because the Appointing Trustees are not the masters or employers of the board. If any Appointing Trustee is so foolish as to remove a member of the board without lawful authority, he will run exactly the same risk as any other person who performs an illegal act. Were he to be the chairman of the Clearing House Bankers or the president of the Law Society, if he interferes with a member of the board in the performance of his duties without lawful reason, he will stand to be answerable in damages to the person who has been interfered with. That is a position which is certainly more formidable than would be the case if the person to be shot at was the Minister. In that case, he would have to go through all the cumbrous procedure which is all that is open to persons who wish to sue a Minister of the Crown, and the fact is that members of the board will be in a position to shoot at
1108
the Appointing Trustees just as if the Minister was the person to be shot at.

He has now told us that the Appointing Trustees might commit an illegal act, the illegal act consisting in dismissing a person who is not suffering from inability or misbehaviour. But inability or misbehaviour is a question of judgment. All Tight, they make an error of judgment. It is not an illegal act, but if they have committed an error of fact, if the tribunal decides that the man in question was not suffering from inability or had not committed misbehaviour and he has lost his job, they have not committed an illegal act. The Attorney-General tells us that as they have not committed an illegal act, the dismissed person has no right of action against them because they are not his employers. I want to know if the Appointing Trustees, without committing an illegal act, have exercised their judgment wrongly and dismissed this man, can the man in question bring an action against them for improper dismissal? I want to know whether that is so or not.

May I direct the attention of the Committee to Sub-section (6) which says:
The Minister may remove any member of the board from his office for inability or misbehaviour.
9.43 p.m.

It is suggested that the word "Minister" should be altered to the "Appointing Trustees." The Sub-section is another instance of the hopelessness of trying to run an enormous business other than by ordinary business methods.

I wish to ask a question. If the Minister or the Appointing Trustees remove any member of the board for inability or misbehaviour, has that member access to any court to which he can appeal against his wrongful dismissal? May I have an answer?

There is a point which arises on the Amendment about which I should like to be clear. So far we have discussed the rights of the board as against the Appointing Trustees or the Appointing Trustees against the board. I am interested in the rights of this House. Under the Clause, as drawn, if the Minister has the right to remove any member of the board from his office for inability or misbehaviour, of course, that confers upon the House of Commons the right to question, censure and debate the conduct of the Minister either in exercising or not exercising that right. It is now proposed to transfer that right from the Minister to the appointing trustees. That may be properly consequential on the whole principle of having the trustees appointing rather than the Minister, but the Committee must realise that this Amendment, if carried, precludes the House from calling in question, by Debate, by question and answer, or by censure of the Minister, the conduct of the board. As regards leave of absence and so on, the Attorney-General, by the Amendment which we have just negatived, has given back to the Minister a duty which was intended to be given to the trustees. Therefore, whether that duty has been properly performed or not can be debated in this House, because it is a duty put upon the Minister by the Bill. The Committee ought to be clear whether the Government really mean to preclude the House from questioning the reason, the wisdom or otherwise of a member of the board being removed.

We are handing over £100,000,000 worth of industries to an unknown board. The Government accept no responsibility for its appointment and can give us no assurance as to its competence; but surely they ought to accept responsi-
1110
bility for removing inefficient members from the board. I think every Member of the Committee will agree that it is a matter of vital importance that inefficient members of the board should be removed.

The hon. and learned Member is now anticipating the next Amendment. He is entitled to argue whether the removal should be by the appointing trustees or by the Minister, but he is not entitled to argue the question of efficiency.

I am leading up to that point. It is a matter of vital importance that the inefficient member should be removed, and the question on this Amendment is, which course is the most likely to achieve that result. Are we most likely to achieve that result if the power is in the hands of the Minister or in the hands of the appointing trustees? If it is left in the hands of the Minister, there are two advantages. He is in close touch with what is going on, and if anybody knows he must know. Moreover, he will not be afraid of making a mistake, because he will not have to pay out of his own pocket; he has the State behind him. How on earth will this proposed body deal with the matter? Once they have appointed the members of the board they will not meet. There is no particular machinery for calling them together, The next time that they meet it may be to deal with some complaint of this sort. In those circumstances, would they have the courage to come to a decision and dismiss someone from office, and render themselves liable to be sued for damages, whatever may be the precise form of action taken, which they would have to pay out of their own pockets?

The result would be that no one would ever be removed, however inefficient, unless the case was as plain as a pikestaff, which it never is, because there is always two sides to a question. We must appreciate how terribly important it is that this Board should be competent. There will be only seven members of it. If one member is incompetent he may be in charge of one particular branch and it may be very important that he should be removed. Let the Committee consider the matter on its merits. Do they really think that these Appointing Trustees will ever have a chance of coming to a de-
1111
cision, and even if they have a chance will they have the courage to take it? In all probability they have not willingly accepted this responsibility; it has been pushed upon them. Their personality is to change every 12 months, and they may not know each other in the second year, yet they are to be asked to come to a decision on something of which they know nothing. What does a banker know about the proper conduct of transport affairs? They are not very competent to determine whether a man is efficient or not. They can only do that on evidence and, after inquiry, they may come to a wrong decision, the man affected may go before a jury, and these people may be mulcted in heavy damages. The result will be that they will never dismiss anybody, however incompetent a person may be, and we shall be the losers in consequence.

There are two points which I should like to put to the Attorney-General. Under the Bill as originally drafted the Minister had the power of dismissal, but there is no action for illegal dismissal against the Minister as a Minister of the Crown. There can be no action, I understand, against the Crown in that regard. That immunity has not been extended to the Appointing Trustees. Therefore an action, as the Attorney-General admits, might be brought against these gentlemen. I do not know whether it could be brought jointly or individually, but I should like the Attorney-General to explain the position on that matter. Further, I should like the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say whether this Bill is mandatory upon these gentlemen in the future. Does it mean that the next President of the Law Society must take on this particular office?

I think that if the Government press the Amendment we shall probably carry it. We may assume that. Therefore, I am not in the least making the suggestion that I am about to make because of any inability to persuade the Committee, but I am anxious as far as possible to carry the whole Committee with us on a Bill of the greatest possible importance. [Laughter.] It is so, in spite of that laughter. If the Committee as a whole think that, notwithstanding the fact that the Appointing Trustees are to appoint the board, it is best that the Minister should deal with the responsible duty of dismissal, I am content to leave the Minister in charge of that matter. If that is the general view of the Committee, I am content to take that course. It has been suggested that we should leave that duty with the Minister, after consultation with the Appointing Trustees.

I think that would be advisable. Therefore, if I may have leave to withdraw the Amendment I will then, with the permission of the Chair, leave in the words "the Minister," and move to insert the words "after consultation with the Appointing Trustees."

We are very much obliged to the Attorney-General for making this concession. We would not think of suggesting that he has adopted a roughshod attitude. He has been most conciliatory and we are very grateful to accept the Amendment.

I desire to point out the extraordinary position which has now been reached. This Bill was violently opposed in the last Parliament, of which I was not a Member, by the Conservative party on the ground that it was a definite step in the direction of nationalisation. In order to avoid that charge the present Government decided to take the control of the board from the Minister and set up the Appointing Trustees, a sort of electoral college. This electoral college will still appoint, but the moment they have appointed their effective functions cease, and the responsibility now rests with the Minister. The members of the board are now to be dismissed by the Minister. It is true that the Attorney-General says that he shall consult the Appointing Trustees but, nevertheless, the Minister becomes the effective master of every member of the board while he serves. The Minister is only out of the picture when the new appointments are made. I want the Committee to realise the vital nature of the change to which the Attorney-General has consented after pressure by hon. Members. The Government have now reverted to their original proposal. Every Member, if the Amendment is accepted, can say that this is a Socialist Measure. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] You could not say that five minutes ago. Whether Socialism is good or bad does not matter. There are a large number of people who think that if it is a Socialist Measure it is good; and there are a large number of people who think that it is bad. This Bill, with its altered character if the Amendment is accepted, means that the Minister is now to have a continuing power over members of the board. I beg hon. Members not to think that this is a mere matter of drafting or discipline. Every member of the board will know that in certain circumstances the Minister may take such action as may lead to their dismissal. Therefore, the State becomes the effective controller of the board, and we have restored the Bill to the position it was in the last Parliament.

The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) desired to draw the attention of the Committee to some thing. I also want to draw the attention of the Committee to some-
1114
thing, and that is the way in which the discussion on this Bill has, so far, been conducted. The hon. Member for Croydon, South, with other hon. Members, pressed the Government to withdraw their Amendment on the ground that the Clause gives the Minister power to dismiss on certain specified grounds of fact; that to put such power in the hands of the appointing trustees would expose private individuals to a great risk of action for damages in one form or another. Having argued that case—if that was not the hon. Member's case I do not know what it can be—and, the Minister having consented to withdraw the Amendment, the hon. Member now gets up and says that it is now a Socialist Measure. I have been wondering during the last two days whether the reputation of this House can last two more such days of discussion as we have had, not due to the responsible opponents of the Bill, the representatives of the London County Council, but owing to the continuous sniping of various hon. Members who have no care whatever for the merits of the Bill, and who have conducted the discussions in a way to waste the time of the House and degrade the reputation of Parliament. I suggest that we should now get on with the job one way or the other.

It may be the function of the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) to teach us all manners. Whether he is competent to do so or not is a matter of discussion, but he has no right to put into my mouth words which I never used. It is the kind of conduct to which I am quite unaccustomed. I was not brought up in the kind of school which educates a man to put words which he never used into another man's mouth. I was not brought up in the same school as the Noble Lord.

I do not agree with a single word that the Noble Lord has said. The discussion has been extremely useful and has resulted in the Attorney-General altering the proposal of the Government. It means that now the appointing trustees have no power or responsibility to remove the gentlemen appointed to the board. The matter is left to the Minister, who must have more knowledge of the facts than the appoint-
1115
ing trustees can possibly have, and, in addition, the Minister is safeguarded because he is to consult with the trustees before taking action. The Noble Lord is entirely wrong. The discussion has resulted in a very useful alteration and I am much obliged to the Attorney-General for having altered his proposal.

I think I was wrong in allowing the Noble Lord to make his speech, but the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) having replied to the personal allegation we cannot continue a discussion on that subject any longer. It does not arise on the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 20, after the word "for" to insert the word "inefficiency."

10.4 p.m.

I am inflicting myself on the Committee very soon after being subjected to the rebuke, to which hon. Members have listened. After all, it is not very distressing. I am not sure whether the Amendment is necessary. It is a question of legal interpretation, and perhaps the Attorney General will say whether it is necessary for the purpose for which I desire to move it. When the hon. Member for Altrincham (Mr. Atkinson) was speaking, you, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, called him to order because he used the word "inefficiency" in connection with the possible dismissal of a member of the board, and you said that his remarks were more suitable to this Amendment. Therefore, I am entitled to assume that the words "inability" and "misbehaviour" do not include "inefficiency," and that it is desirable therefore that the word should be inserted. I am a critic of the Bill, but if it is to pass I want it to be a success, and it seems to me that its success will be gravely threatened if members of the board can continue in service not because they are mentally incompetent, certified to be lunatics, or physically unable to attend to their job, or because they have co-
1116
mmitted some form of offence which is called misbehaviour, but merely because they were not good enough for the job.

You may very well have this board consisting, as it does, of seven people, of whom at the moment I think three are to be a quorum. It is conceivable that on that quorum you may have one or two persons whom, when appointed, everybody believed to be suitable persons, but after appointment it is discovered that they are unsuitable. These unsuitable persons might at times represent a majority of the board or a majority of the quorum engaged in the conduct of this gigantic undertaking. I think it is very important that there should exist somewhere a power to remove people on the ground that they are not good enough for the job. If you have appointed people for a period of years and you remove them for inefficiency, it might well be that you ought properly to give them some compensation, because in appointing them you were not only deceived but you deceived them. I should not object in the least to some measure of compensation, but I urge very strongly indeed that on the ground of inefficiency of management of the undertaking it ought to be possible for someone—now it is the Minister, after consultation with the appointing trustees—to have the power to remove from the board a person whose ability is not such as to enable him to discharge his job efficiently.

I hope that my hon. Friend will not press the Amendment. He was candid enough to say that he was not sure whether the word "inefficiency" was desirable or not. The expression in the Bill is "misbehaviour." It is found in the County Courts Act and in the Railway and Canal Traffic Act. The latter is an analogous Measure. The words are used in that Act as representing the cause for which a railway and canal traffic commissioner may be removed from his office. The word "inefficiency," if inserted, suggests some thing which, I suppose, is different from inability, and it might denote something less than that perfect ideal of efficiency which all of us would desire. Suppose it was suggested that a civil servant might be dismissed for inefficiency, in-
1117
ability and misbehaviour. We are all agreed that you really cannot dismiss people for inefficiency as distinct from inability or misbehaviour. Inefficiency may amount to misbehaviour; inefficiency may amount to inability.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 22, at the end, to add the words:
(8) Subject to the provisions of this section the provisions contained in the First Schedule to this Act shall have effect with respect to the constitution and proceedings of the Appointing Trustees.
10.9 p.m.

This Amendment is concerned merely with the selection and convening and procedure of the Appointing Trustees. It provides that the representative of the London Traffic Advisory Committee is to be selected by that Committee from among the members appointed by local authorities, and is to hold office for three years. The Minister shall take steps to set the Appointing Trustees in motion, the trustees are to appoint one of their members as chairman, the decision of the trustees is to be by a majority of those present, and the chairman is to have a casting vote, and there are certain other minor matters.

We have now arrived at a stage when it is possible to review in general terms the provisions of this Clause. The House did not have the advantage of a Second Reading Debate on the Bill, but in the course of our considerations during these two days of the Committee stage a great variety of subjects arising on this Clause has been considered, and the extent of the Debate, and the interest in the issues which have been raised, are sufficient
1118
indication of the importance and the complication of the matters which the Clause involves. The two most important points which arise out of the Clause are the constitution and functions of the Board if that board is successfully to discharge the duties imposed upon it. The constitution of the board has been modified since the original introduction of the Bill, in so far as its appointment is concerned. Their prospects of carrying out the duties imposed upon them have also received a certain amount of consideration from the point of view of the financial basis of the Bill.

In the course of the discussions earlier in our proceedings, I submitted an Amendment calling attention to certain necessary precautions regarding the financial basis of the Bill. The learned Attorney-General pointed out on that occasion that the Amendment as I had suggested it was not the most appropriate position in which to consider that aspect of the case. With that in mind I did not press my Amendment to a division, but I hope that in the course of the Committee stage we shall have a better opportunity of debating those particular issues in detail. At the same time there are many of us who have grave apprehensions with regard to the financial basis of the proposals, and consequently as to the success which will attend the operations of the board. The learned Attorney-General pointed out that the Government in arriving at their decision to proceed with this Measure had the advantage of constant advice from the Treasury, who had gone fully into the financial questions which arose. At the same time he did not see his way to impart to the Committee the conclusions which had been placed before the Government, nor to put the Committee in possession of the facts on which the Government arrived at their decision. That is a matter for great regret.

Looking at it, as we Members of the Committee without special information are bound to look at it, we see the grave financial responsibilities which the board is bound to assume. We see that the circumstances in which they will take up their duties are widely different from those set out in the pro forma statement prepared by the eminent accountant whose name has been mentioned. And
1119
owing to the fact that the Transport Board will enter upon its duties at a time and in circumstances widely different from the conditions on which the present proposals are based, we are, I believe, entitled to view the future prospects of the undertaking with grave apprehension. If the undertaking is not as successful as the Attorney-General and the Government believe it will be one of two things must happen. Either the board will be unable to discharge its liabilities, or, failing that, in order to discharge those liabilities, fares will have to be raised and facilities curtailed. I make no excuse for insisting upon that point, because there is a very widespread feeling of apprehension that the financial basis of the Bill is not sound. As far as the constitution of the board and the nature of the authority to be created are concerned, it has been clearly pointed out to the Committee in our discussions that if this Bill receives the approval of Parliament an instrument will have been created quite without precedent and one which is only very partially, if at all, susceptible to Parliamentary control. It will be an instrument in regard to which only to a very limited extent can Parliament call upon any Minister of the Crown for explanations.

We have other grounds for apprehension, from the point of view of the travelling public, in the fact that a complete monopoly is to be established without any Parliamentary control, such as this House is accustomed to and expects. We are faced with the prospect of a complete monopoly. There can be no mistake about that. It is recognised. What may be the result? What is the usual result of monopolies? Lack of enterprise, stagnation, unwillingness to enter upon new undertakings, to adopt new inventions, or to be receptive of new ideas. The history of passenger transport in London is a series of developments as the result of improvement and competition. I suppose it is correct to say that the electrification of the trams was almost the direct result of the introduction of electric tubes. The electric tram, in its turn, gradually cut out the horse omnibus, and the answer to the electric tram has been the motor omnibus which we know to-day.

The interplay of competition produced those results. Is it seriously to be
1120
supposed that without the influence of competition we should have the improvements, of which we enjoy the advantage to-day or the efficiency which is characteristic of the whole of the undertakings of what we call the Underground Combine? If it had not been for competition, what probability is there that those improvements would exist to-day? In this morning's issue of the "Times" there is a long leading article on the subject of our deliberations of to-day and last Tuesday. The "Times" pays much less of a compliment to the organisation of the Underground Combine than I would, when it describes the existing transport conditions of London as chaos.

I cannot help thinking that this discussion ought to take place on Clause 3 which deals with the general duties of the board. Clause 1, I must point out, refers merely to the method of the appointment of the board.

Sir K.VAUGHAN-MORGAN

If I have been exceeding the Rules of Order, I am glad to have been called up, but I was seeking to explain the circumstances of to-day, and the conditions under which those circumstances have been reached, and I was venturing to criticise an opinion expressed from an outside quarter which, if it were correct, would perhaps make our deliberations here less worth while than they ought to be. To return to the constitution and duties of the board, they are to be entrusted with the sole control of a vast system of passenger transport, in an area, as we know, of 1,800 square miles, serving a population of 9,000,000 persons, an organisation which serves the public to the extent of 4,000 million passenger journeys per year. I do not know that the Committee wishes to hear much more about whether the Measure is Socialist or not. It was certainly so described by the right hon. Gentleman who was in charge of it a year-and-a-half ago; it was certainly welcomed as such by the then President of the Board of Trade; it was certainly characterised in those terms by the former President of the Board of Trade, then the member of the Conservative party, who led the Opposition to it; and it was described as a Socialist Measure in no less emphatic terms by
1121
the hon. and gallant Member for Abingdon (Major Glyn), who is associated with the railway interests.

If it was a Socialist Measure then, very little has in reality been done to render it less Socialist now. I see the Minister of Transport looking round, but I give him my opinion that very little has been done to alter that characteristic. The only thing is that the appointment of the board has been changed, and we have seen the difficulties into which that change has led us, but compulsory acquisition, not voluntary as was proposed in earlier Measures, is still a feature of it. However, we are asked to support, or rather to make possible, the progress of this Measure on the ground that, without it, certain improvements in the transport of this city cannot be undertaken. At the same time, we have had no assurance that if the Bill becomes law, those improvements will be embarked upon. When the Minister comes to reply, I hope he will be able to give us some assurance that the grounds on which we are urged to pass it will not be neglected if the Bill becomes law, and that we shall have some advantages in return for the risks that the passenger will have to incur. As a Member of the Conservative party, it is perhaps fair that I should say a word on the subject of party ties or party allegiance.

I will not stress that matter, but I am entitled to point out that the Bill is of an unusual character. It has no precedent, and consequently it produces in this Committee a quite unusual condition, which again, like itself, is without precedent. The opposition which has been urged to the Bill is directed to the principle on which the constitution of the board rests, to the risks which must result, in our opinion, to the travelling public, and, as I have said, on account of the wide apprehensions of the inevitable results which are held by a great number of people. The Committee in this Measure is setting up an entirely new form of public authority, a form which, in the years to come, will no doubt be used as an argument for erecting similar instruments of govern-
1122
ment in respect of other industries and other problems. We are legislating not for a time, not for an hour, not for the present, but practically speaking for all time. Consequently, the Committee must realise the grave responsibility resting on them if they approve Clause 1, which contains some of the most important features of the Bill. The Government have, in my judgment, failed to convince the Committee that the dangers which we apprehend have been averted and that the advantages which are held out to us as being the grounds which justify this Bill will be secured. For those reasons, I view the progress of this Bill with grave apprehension, and I propose to vote against it.

It has now become obvious from the discussions that we have had on this Clause what are the real intentions behind the changes which the Government have thought it necessary to make in it. There are some Members, among wham is the hon. and gallant Member for East Fulham (Sir K. Vaughan-Morgan), who apparently look upon this Bill as a Socialistic Measure, and who regard this particular Clause as containing some definitely Socialistic proposals.

I have heard others refer to the proposals of this Clause as the new Socialism. If it does in any way establish what some hon. Members are pleased to call the new Socialism, they have very different ideas of Socialism from those of most of us who sit on these benches. Apparently, from the very first this Clause was suspect, and so, to appease the angry anti-Socialist Members of the Government and their back bench supporters, it was thought necessary to introduce the Amendments which we have spent the greater part of two days in discussing. The argument stressed most by the Government for the proposals which they have now embodied in the Clause was that they wanted to remove the control of the new authority which is to be set up from the arena of party politics. That may or may not be a desirable object. I am convinced from the arguments that I have heard from the supporters of the Government that what they have done in the Clause as
1123
now amended will not have the effect which they have tried to convince the Committee the changes will have. In addition, during the two days that have been spent on the first Clause we have had the curious spectacle of the great Conservative party, exercising as it does tremendous influence over the social and economic life of this country from British whist drives to the Bank of England, coming to the House of Commons pretending, through the Amendments which have been put forward that they want to remove from the influence of party politics the new body which is to control London transport.

I am unconvinced, in spite of all their arguments, that anything in the Amendments now incorporated in Clause 1 are, likely to do that. I cannot understand, for instance, why they should pretend to be so afraid of political influence. Why should they try to make us believe that one of the most pernicious things in life is political influence Really they do not believe it. Always and everywhere the Members of the Conservative party are seeking to bring to bear upon our social and economic affairs all the political influence they can, and in the Amendments they have made in this Bill they are strengthening the political influence they are able to wield. The body of Trustees who are to make these appointments to the board will strengthen the political influence they exercise, and I can only characterise the contention that the series of Amendments now incorporated in the Clause were put forward on the ground that hon. Members wanted to eliminate political influence from controlling this body as sheer humbug—to use the words uttered by the Dominions Secretary in this House some time ago.

What nonsense has been talked about impartiality in this Debate. I do not think I have ever heard more nonsense talked about impartiality than in the last two days. Those who will appoint this board, in view of the circles from which they are drawn, will in no sense be able to divest themselves of that bias of mind which has naturally become their own through the particular positions they have occupied, and that will influence the appointments they make. So far as I am concerned, no argument to which I have
1124
listened has in any way proved to me that what has been done removes this new body from political influence. The whole intention has been to strengthen not only on the present occasion but for the future the influence which the Conservative party will wield over this new organisation.

I have not taken up much time in the last two days, and I think I may be allowed to say a word on Clause 1, because, after all, Clause 1 is in reality the Bill itself. This Clause sets up for the first time in this country an authority, to be called the London Passenger Transport Board, to deal with the passenger transport of the Greater London area. If that is not a subject which demands a considerable amount of attention from the House of Commons I do not know what is, and I fail to see why anybody should criticise reasonable opposition being put forward to this Bill, which will undoubtedly be the preliminary to a series of Bills establishing similar transport boards all over the United Kingdom. I maintain that it is essential, if poor London is to be sacrificed, that at all events strict examination should be made of the proposed methods of sacrifice, before the methods are applied to other parts of the country. It is unreasonable to expect that there should not be a great deal of opposition to this proposal. Those who are interested in this matter find no pleasure in opposing His Majesty's Government. We are not doing this out of irresponsibility or a desire to hurt the feelings of our own leaders. We feel that on this occasion something is at stake which ought to be closely examined and re-examined, before the country is committed to this type of public undertaking.

Some few months ago the Lord President of the Council, in one of those remarkable speeches to which he gives utterance occasionally, warned the nation of the dangers attendant upon these huge organisations. He stressed the dangers and difficulties of the amalgamation of groups of similar interests, and some of us agree with him that the amalgamations that we have seen in this country, in many forms of industrial enterprise, have not been good, either for the amalgamations or for the individuals who happened to be engaged in those enterprises. I maintain that the most critical
1125
examination should proceed from this House, whether it is tired of us or not. It is plain for anybody who wishes to see, that this Bill is not popular in the House of Commons. It is not popular outside the House of Commons.

On a point of Order. May I ask if the hon. Member's speech is in order? The first Clause relates to the appointment of the board and to the duties of that board. The hon. Gentleman is making a Second Reading speech.

The first sentence of this Clause says
there shall be established a public authority.
10.37 p.m.

That is a fairly wide phrase, and an important phrase. It covers the whole purport of the Bill. I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) upon the Opposition Front Bench is not too anxious to discuss it. This Bill establishing a public authority is opposed not only by the body to which I belong, on local government grounds, but by 22 borough councils in London. It is opposed by at least 50 Members of Parliament in the area of Greater London. In the examination of this Bill we have been perfectly right in the opposition displayed. We are not satisfied yet, even from the explanations of the Attorney-General or the Minister of Transport that the financial basis of this Bill is sound. It has been held to be doubtful ever since the proposals in connection with the Bill were put forward. I am afraid that the recent proposals have not strengthened anyone in a belief that the financial proposals upon which the Bill is built are sound. If those proposals could have received an examination, the result of which might have been presented to the House some time during the 2½ hours that we spent on Tuesday, it would have been better for everyone concerned.

We have made our protest against the establishment of this public authority. We may expect Clause 1 to be carried, and, inasmuch as that is the foundation upon which the Bill is built, we must accept the decision of the House, but I
1126
should like, if I may, to read what may be anticipated from this Bill. The Minister of Transport in his speech said that the method proposed in this Bill was a way in which they were going to obtain public ownership of all transport. Why does the Minister stop there? This Measure may be a precedent for the public ownership of everything. Why does the hon. Gentleman stop at railways, transport and electricity? Why not include steel? Why should not the right hon. Gentleman say to other industries, "I do not like the way in which you are conducting your business, and I propose to transfer all companies, whether they like it or not, to a new undertaking or combine"? I do not suppose that the present Minister of Transport will ever say such things, but it is quite possible that the view expressed by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, which has already been quoted, is a view that is held by all of us as to what may happen if in future there is ever a change of Government, and right hon. Gentlemen on the other side come in. To a certain extent the Government have met the proposals put forward by the authority with which I am connected, and for that one is grateful. One can only accept it exactly in the spirit in which the Minister of Transport has offered it to us, and I thank him for his courtesy in that direction. But, at the same time, I should not like him to feel that that expression of gratitude indicates that we are reconciled to what still is evidently, to most of us, the bad basis of a very bad Bill.

The hon. Member for Richmond (Sir W. Ray), who speaks with some authority on London subjects, has criticised this first Clause of the Bill. I propose also to criticise the Clause, but I must admit that between our grounds of criticism there is a slight shade of difference. For example, I am afraid I cannot share the obvious pain with which the hon. Member has criticised the Government, although I would not like to cause any personal discomfort or distress to the Minister of Transport or to the Attorney-General, who has been so genial and kind throughout the whole of this discussion. First of all, I should like to ask a question which I attempted to ask on an Amendment earlier, namely: Is this Clause mandatory on the gentle-
1127
men who hold these particular offices now, or will hold them in the future? If the President of the Law Society is changed next year or the year after, is he entitled to refuse to take on this particular obligation, or is it imposed upon him by law, so that, if anyone becomes President of the Law Society, he must be a member of this body of Appointing Trustees? Similarly, of course, I should like to know the position in this respect of the holders of the other offices. It is very important to know whether anyone who takes any of those offices will have the right to refuse this particular obligation, because these Appointing Trustees are, I understand, honorary officers—there is no emolument attached to the work, although the duties are very arduous. I would ask for an answer on that point.

My second point is this: My criticism of the Clause as it now stands, after having been amended, is that we object to the appointment of this body of appointing trustees for the purpose of appointing the London Passenger Traffic Board, and to the taking away of the power from the responsible Minister. The Attorney-General has said that this has been done because the Minister might have been subjected to influences to which he ought not to be subjected. It is freeing him from those political influences. The Attorney-General speaks with some authority on the subject of influences being exercised upon Members of the House, because it is not so many months ago that Members were subjected to very heavy influences by associations with which, I believe, the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself is connected. During the passage of the Sunday Entertainments Bill, for example, we were inundated with postcards. We were threatened not merely with the security of our seats but with the safety of our souls. We were threatened not merely with eternal damnation in the next world but, what is more cogent, with political extinction in this. But we resisted that political and spiritual influence exercised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's friends and we carried the Bill. If we could resist those thunderbolts wielded by the Sunday Observance Society, surely we can resist the complaints of a traffic manager or an omnibus conductor or whatever influences are
1128
supposed to be exercised upon us, and, through us, upon the Minister. Their argument, therefore, falls to the ground.

The Attorney-General went a step further. He said that, if the Minister's name appeared in this Clause, he would very likely be pressed by political opinion. It may be bad or good that he should be subjected to political opinion, but what is desirable is that he should be subjected to public opinion upon these proceedings. We in this House represent public opinion, and we think it right that public opinion should voice its views and its opinions on the procedure of this board. Therefore, we are opposed to a Clause which takes it out of the purview of the Minister.

There is one other point that might be mentioned. You may by this procedure remove the Minister from the force of public opinion as exercised by the representatives of public opinion in the House. The danger is that, when you set up a board which is divorced from public opinion, with which the Minister should have some connection, the board may begin to exercise influence upon the Minister. We know that that has happened with certain bodies which have been set up of late years. The British Broadcasting Company is one. That is divorced as far from the House of Commons as this board is going to be. We have seen the spectacle of the British Broadcasting Corporation exercising very heavy pressure upon Members of the Government, and we have found them, by means of pressure of a certain kind, causing the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day to grant them an opera subsidy at a time when he was cutting down unemployment benefit. We want to save the Minister from such illicit pressure as that. We are sure he will do his best to resist such pressure, but we do not think he should be subjected to it. Finally, we are criticising this Clause because we stand for the right of public control and public criticism of proceedings which so intimately affect many millions of people. We believe that the rights of the people of London should be safeguarded through the operation of this Measure, and for that reason we are opposed to this Clause in its present form.

I have listened to the discussions upon the Amendments and I feel very strongly upon the whole Bill. I am not going into that, but will confine myself to Clause 1, and point out to the Committee the grave dangers that the nation runs if this Bill should become law, as no doubt it will. I am a London Member, and, as far as London is concerned, I think when I come to criticise this Clause and the Amendments inserted in reference to the Appointing Trustees, I shall be able at least to throw some light on what the actual meaning of it is. We are afraid that this new departure in nationalisation is going to be very disastrous. The Conservative party, or the majority of it, took grave exception to the authority that was to have this power. We are told now that certain of our leaders have adopted the Bill as their own child and are going to carry it to a successful conclusion, and farce it on the country. We are told that the danger of Socialist control is avoided by taking the power out of the hands of the Minister and placing it in the hands of the trustees.

Ministers must think the Members of this House are extremely unbusinesslike, when they tell us about the trustees whom they are going to appoint and who will have the power of appointing the board. They are to include the chairman of the London County Council. The chairman of the present London County Council is a man of great ability who has been chairman of the finance committee and has made very many courageous reductions in expenditure, but he is a very busy man and is a chartered accountant in a very big way. His time is fully occupied. They apparently think they have only to mention the London County Council and the people of London will be satisfied that the appointment is going to do good. The question is, has the present chairman of the London County Council been asked if he will serve on this body? After all, it is a free country and you cannot force a man to serve. Here is a man whose time, to my knowledge, is fully occupied. It is because he is a capable man that he is so fully occupied. What we must take account of is that in another year or 18 months he ceases to be chairman of the London County Council and he may have other
1130
things to do and decline to take this position.

Take the next trustee, the chairman of the London Clearing Bankers, a man of great ability and great integrity, but also a very busy business man. He may not care to give the time. You are in the difficulty that there are two of them who may decline. There is the president of the Law Society, no doubt a man of ability and probably a very busy practising lawyer. He might decline, or he might not. Suppose that the majority of these people decline, where is the Minister to obtain persons to fill the vacancies? No provision is made. Will it be possible to go outside those organizations? If these gentlemen or any of them decline to serve, who will be appointed in their stead That matter is in the air. Who will be nominated? We do not know what are to be the actual functions of the Appointing Trustees. Are they merely to be called together to nominate the active board which is to carry on the business?

There is also the question of the people who have been nominated. Experience teaches us—and I think many hon. Members will bear me out—that you will get this body of able and competent men called together to nominate the members of the board. How the names are to be put before them I do not know. They will select the board, and then they will come to another difficulty. When the board has been selected, they are to be called upon to nominate a manager or managers. You will find that seven persons will be looking about in order to nominate these men. One person may nominate one man and another person may nominate another. They may call in the Minister of Transport and ask him if he has any names to propose. They may say: "We have some very good names indeed, and we cannot do better than recommend so and so. Here are his credentials." But what will happen will be that the nominees of the Minister of Transport will be selected. That sort of thing has happened on more than one occasion. We have seen—and I have called attention to it in the House before—that nominations in some Departments are very largely influenced by political opinions and principles. In the Ministry of Transport they have an arrangement in regard to appointments under which a certain proportion are allotted to the Labour party. I do not
1131
want to say one rude or disagreeable word about that party, but we know that the political Labour party is a Socialist party. From experience we know that in one case when the Ministry wanted a man to fill a certain public office they went to one of the leaders of the Socialist party, Mr. Bevin, head of the Transport Workers' Union, and said to him: "Will you let us have the name of the man you wish to nominate for this post?" He nominated a particular man, and he was appointed. We do not want politics to interfere with or to enter into the question of purely commercial appointments. That is one of the things in regard to which we have to take our lessons from the past, and it must make us realise the dangers we are up against. We are creating an organisation that will undoubtedly last for a long time.

We all have great respect for the hon. Member, and I am sure that he would not wish to repeat a statement which is not in accordance with the facts. He has stated on two occasions in this House that we at the Ministry of Transport put forward a Socialist to replace a member of the Weir Commission, who was 82 years of age, whom we decided we could not appoint for a further three years. The truth is that when the matter came up the names of two people were put forward. One was a Socialist and the other was not of that particular political complexion. When the appointment was finally made, the person appointed was Mr. Luke Thompson, a Member of this House.

I do not want to go into the details, but as the Minister has challenged the veracity of my statement 1 must say that the facts are as I stated them. Since he has challenged me, I say that I could produce a letter from the Minister of Transport on the subject. Before I left for Egypt last winter, 1 wrote to the Minister of Transport and complained about this appointment, pointing out that never before in the history of this country had politics interfered with appointments to a purely commercial position. After my arrival in Egypt, I received a letter from the hon. Member, which I have in my pocket, in which he said: "We have an agreement with the Labour party by which we are bound to give them a certain number
1132
of these appointments." That was the reason why he had appointed a gentleman who happened to be one of the leaders of the Socialist party. Later, he said that he had cancelled that appointment and had appointed Mr. Luke Thompson, who was then Conservative Member for Sunderland. I have every right, therefore, to point out what is going on. There is bargaining; and, if there is to be this enormous patronage under this Bill, we must make up our minds that we are prepared to give to the Minister these unlimited powers for the purposes, shall I say, of bribery. I cannot refrain from warning the Committee of the dangers in regard to this question. The board under the Bill have power to acquire all sorts of property and carry out all sorts of schemes.

What took place in the London County Council some years ago when the Liberals and the Socialists were in power? The tramways were in the hands of the London County Council; and they created a works department. They took all the work into their own department. They refused to give out contracts to anybody; and there was a waste of millions of pounds of money. The rates of London were enormously increased until the ratepayers revolted, and at the election, now some 20 odd years ago, the Progressive party as it was called was swept away. Now we are proposing to give to the Minister of Transport exactly the same powers not only in London but within a radius of 25 miles. You are going to interfere with the traffic of the suburban main lines within a radius of 25 miles, and if there are any complaints they will give a Socialist Government the chance of saying that they will nationalise the whole of the main lines. Once you start on this adventure of nationalisation you cannot stop when you want; you have to go on. The Socialists when they introduced this Bill were honest enough to tell the country that it was Socialism, that they were out for Socialism and nationalisation. Now that the Government are bringing the Bill before the House and forcing it through, we must admit that they are also out for nationalisation.

I rise to make an appeal to the Committee that, unless anyone has a fresh argument to bring forward, they might allow us now to
1133
have this Clause; and in spite of the fact that it was agreed that we should not go on after Eleven o'Clock with anything really controversial, I would ask that we might also be given Clause 2 to-night. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If that cannot he done with the consent of the Committee I cannot, of course, press it.

I do not intend to pursue the argument of the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. S. Samuel), though I was interested in hearing him state that in connection with an appointment to the Weir Committee the Minister of Transport appointed a Conservative when a Socialist had been recommended. The opposition to this Bill, the gentlemen behind the Government, have expressed their objections to this Clause on two grounds. They have said, of course, that it is Socialism; and they have objected to it because it meant amalgamation on too great a scale. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Richmond (Sir W. Ray) is not present, for there are one or two things I would like to say to him. I suspect that the objection of certain Conservatives to this Bill is more on financial grounds than on the ground that it involves too great an amalgamation. I can assure them that we of the Labour party do not like amalgamation on this huge scale any more than they do. At least I do not myself. But as a matter of fact it is for that very reason that we have to accept the logic of modern industry. In my time I have seen this move from the small family company to the limited liability company, and from the limited liability company to the great amalgamation, and I know from experience that it is not a pleasant situation for the worker. It is for that very reason that we have tried to safeguard the interests of those who will be employed by this great combine in London.

On behalf of the Labour party I would say that we do appreciate that the Attorney-General has made himself very genial during the discussions. It has been a very pleasant experience—and I
1134
am speaking with knowledge of many Governments—to find that a Minister is open to ideas as expressed in the Committee proceedings. It is not too often that we see it, and we appreciate the fact that the Minister of Transport has, to some extent, modified the position in regard to the appointment of the trustees. To the extent that a certain amount of power has been kept in the hands of the Minister, we think the Bill has been strengthened. Still, I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General ought to give an answer on the point as to whether, if any of these gentlemen do not want to take over these duties, they will be compelled to do so. Some of them at any rate will have to fulfil certain functions in connection with their own organisations during that year and may only be able to discharge their duties rather casually. I think in practice it will be found that some of these gentlemen will be unable to give the time necessary for the work anticipated by the Minister.

Our fundamental objection however is that the people most concerned in the organisation have no part whatever in the appointment of the board. We are putting the workers' case though we agree that it applies to other interests as well. The workers are to have no part in the appointment of the board. I put this point to Conservatives. In past years they have said that they wanted to associate the workers with the conduct of business generally and the great industries. Just after the War, that was a popular theory. I think most hon. Members who are employers, admit—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] I voted against the suspension of the Standing Order at this Sitting and hon. Members who voted for it, have no business to cry out, "Divide" at this stage. It is not often that I occupy the time of the Committee. But this is a point which it is necessary to put in connection with this Bill. Sooner or later, in every activity connected with the running of businesses and great industrial combinations, it will be found necessary to consult the experience of the workers. In former years, Conservatives have eulogised that principle but now when they are in power, they seem to think they can do without it. I venture to say that Conservatives here to-night and business men particularly, will live to regret the
1135
day when they set up an organisation in which they ignored the needs and experience of the workers. The day is not far distant when this House of Commons will wish that it had paid more heed to the representations which are being made here to-night. We think that the workers have been ignored in this matter and that it is a bad thing for any great combination or organisation like this. For that reason, with great regret, this party will vote against the passing of the Clause.

I am asked about the legal position of these people who are to serve as trustees. Each of the bodies whom they represent has agreed that their temporary head, president or chairman, shall act. If in future years the person holding such a position declines to act, I suggest to the House, and my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General concurs with me in saying, that they would be open to an order from the court by way of mandamus to concur in making the appointment; but happily in this country, when people find that Parliament requests them to perform duties, quite generally they do so, and no such possibility as I have mentioned need be contemplated.

We have been appealed to by the Attorney-General to let him have Clause 1 to-night. As a new London Member, I object to having a Bill of this sort thrown at my head without any explanation of a detailed character from any Minister as to why the London Passenger Transport Board should be set up. I was born and bred a Londoner; I am a Conservative from birth; I am a small business man; and I have fought from the age of 15 until now in defence of individualism and the right of intelligent citizens to engage in competitive business, for the sake not only of profit, but of service to the community. Here I am asked, and my loyalty is appealed to, to support the Government in the establishment of the greatest monopoly that has ever been attempted since the days when corruption inflicted itself upon this land during the Middle Ages. I object to this request. I make no excuse for speaking, even at this hour of the night. To me, this is as important
1136
as the Children Bill that kept the House up all night last Session, because here we are asked to establish a Transport Board for London which prevents citizens ever again exercising what has been their right for hundreds of years to run vehicles to carry passengers. People in the suburbs are to be forced to walk, it may be for a mile or two miles, because it will not suit the old-fashioned Transport Board in 15 years' time to give them the service which they have the right to expect.

I object to this request, even from Members of my own party. If we pass this Clause and make the precedent of setting up this Board, next year we may be asked to set up a similar Board for Birmingham and the Midlands, and I want Members from that district to think furiously before they vote for Clause 1 of this Bill. The following year they will be asked to set up a Passenger Transport Board for Manchester and Lancashire. My father is a Lancashire man, and he taught me from the cradle to stand for independence and enterprise. Lancashire is world-renowned for its independence and enterprise. Are my Lancashire friends going to tell me that they would support the abolition of all individual enterprise in Lancashire in two years' time? If they vote for this Board for London, they cannot resist a similar board for Lancashire in the near future. I object to being asked to put up such a board for London. Where is the necessity for it? Has any country Member arriving at Euston or King's Cross, at Victoria or Cannon Street, ever had any trouble to get across London? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] From the Bank of England to the terminals in the south of London, we have had a tube in existence almost from the time I was born. We have been able to travel under the River Thames and the busiest part of the city through the West End underground for twenty or thirty years. We have electric trams and motor omnibuses second to none in their efficiency.

All these enterprises have been the result of persistent and constant competition between one interest and another. I live in Hornsey. Eight years ago, when the London General Omnibus Company were becoming by their power almost of a monopolistic nature, we saw the intervention of the pirate omnibuses. They had been responsible for opening
1137
new routes in all parts of London which we should never have had but for their competition. My house is within a minute's walk of an omnibus route. If the London General Omnibus Company had had their way in those days, we should never have had that route, and I should have had a ten minutes' walk to get to the omnibuses. The pirates were driven off the established routes by the Traffic Act and they found new ways round. It is one of those ways round that enables me to home easily late at night. I must admit that at this hour I shall lose the last omnibus, but I do not mind if I stay here all night in defence of the greatest principle in my political life. The establishment of a board of this sort is unjustifiable, and I am astounded to think that it ever fell to the lot of my political party to give a blessing to such a proposal in order to make some pact with their opponents. It is unworthy of my party, and I hope they will regret having entered into it.

I am not going to enter into a controversy as to when the pact was made. I am going to continue my opposition to the inauguration of this hoard. I ask hon. Members opposite how they can, if they had the interests of the working-class at heart, support the establishment of a board of this sort. [HON. MEMBERS "We do not!"] Hon. Members on Labour benches are only opposed to the method of appointing the board. They are not opposed to the principle of the board itself, because it was proposed in their Socialist Measure. The Government have watered down that Measure in order to get rid of that political influence which we deprecate. One or two Members have asked: "How can political influence affect the question?" If we allow the Minister of Transport to become the employer of tens of thousands of omnibus drivers, tube and tram conductors and all the other workers connected with transport, the next General Election will be fought on these lines. Hon. Members of the Labour party will go to the workers and say "Vote for the Labour party and we will give you 5s. a week rise." That is their object; just as they went to the
1138
postal workers. I represent a division where there is a larger percentage of resident postmen than in any other. In 1929 you of the Labour party went to that division, to my workmen, and said "Vote Labour and we guarantee never again to reduce the postal workers' wages, irrespective of any fall in the index figure." Because you let down the postal workers twice they deserted your candidate, and I am here. The creation of this Passenger Transport Board will allow you to go to the workers and make the same promises at every election—hoping that you may be able to carry them out. You failed to carry them out for the postal workers, but you hope you may be able to carry them out for the transport workers, but I rather think you may have the same shock—

I sincerely apologise. It was the baiting opposite that caused it. [HON. MEMBERS "Divide!"] I may inform hon. Members who say "Divide" because they happen not to be interested in the subject that they will only cause one of my temperament to go on for four hours instead of 40 minutes. There is one other serious matter from the workmen's point of view. It is admitted that if this Board is established it will be possible, by the co-ordination of traffic, to reduce the number of omnibuses by 1,000, the number of trams by 500. That will mean that 7,500 men will lose their employment in the London area. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Who said that?"] It takes 6¼ men to operate an omnibus, and if you take 1,500 vehicles off the streets in order to relieve the traffic, how can you do it without displacing labour? Hon. Members who claim to represent the workers and are for ever saying they want to reduce unemployment should think furiously before they agree, for the sake of co-ordination and that magic word "rationalisation," to throw 7,500 workers in the London area out of employment.

In addition to that, I have not taken into consideration the number of men
1139
employed on the clerical side of the business who will also be seriously affected if this Measure becomes law. On top of that, think what is meant by a reduction of 1,500 vehicles in London, to all the coachbuilders of the Midlands and the North of England who provide the vehicles, and to the tyre makers of the north who also look for their prosperity to this vastly populated southern metropolis. These points, I feel, are worthy of consideration. There is another matter. Does any hon. Member here believe that to buy out vested interests upon a valuation based upon the years 1925–1930, at a 20 years' purchase for many of them, can ever mean a return of 4½ per cent. upon such an over-capitalised sum as that? Do you—

I am arguing that this Clause does not establish a competent authority to discern what should be a fair payment to the vested interests running the traffic facilities of London to-day. The fact that, because one company stood out, they glibly double the amount of money that they offered to bring it in, is in itself sufficient to justify all the opposition that we care to put up. I care not from which angle you view this matter, there is no justification for the inauguration of such a Board. The motor omnibus, the motor lorry, the road transport vehicle, are to-day beginning the solution of a problem which hon. Members of the Opposition are vitally interested in. The London General Omnibus Company, and others are experimenting with Diesel engines for the use of an oil that is manufactured from English coal. This may be one reason for the rush that is taking place to get this Measure through.

With all due respect, Sir, I do not wish to violate any of the Rules of this House, but I suggest that a London Passenger Transport Board trying to take consideration of these vital problems is not a Board that will give the community the best service. Leave this matter to private enterprise. The London General Omnibus Company is one
1140
of the most efficiently-managed concerns that we have ever known, but it is only efficient because it has had to bear the brunt of competition of similar organisations such as Tilling, and many others. That has forced them to keep up to date. In the experimental shops of many of the companies, there is being evolved a new engine that will give us a field for the operation of road transport at a figure—

I will not pursue that subject now, but will wait for some of the other Clauses. I only want to conclude—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—I wish I knew the art of protracting debate—by saying that, as a lifelong supporter of independent trading, I object to this thin end of the wedge which will drive from the roads of England the road vehicles which private traders should have a right to use. We should stand by the freedom of the King's highway for the use of enterprising traders of the community if they wish to use it. It is because I am jealous in my advocacy of that freedom for which our fathers fought that I am resisting the inauguration of this board of monopoly, control and exploitation which will be in the worst interests of this great city of London.

On a point of Order. It was understood that the House was not going to sit late. Should I be in order in moving the Adjournment of the House on this matter, so that we may have a reply from the Minister?

As one who always takes a hansom cab whenever it is possible, I would like to bring forward the claims of the hansom cabmen and of the drivers of "growlers" and taxicabs. I am sure that they are all wondering why they are entirely left out of this Bill.